Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007255
Original file (20080007255.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

	IN THE CASE OF:	  

	BOARD DATE:	  15 July 2008

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080007255 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to general or honorable. 

2.  The applicant states that he was a conscientious objector.  He points out that at least he tried to serve and that they forgave the draft dodgers that went to Canada. 

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant enlisted on 23 December 1969 for a period of 3 years.  Apparently he completed basic combat training and advanced individual training.      
3.  The applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) on 3 September 1971 and returned to military control on 11 October 1971.  On 13 October 1971, charges were preferred against the applicant for the AWOL period.  

4.  On 21 October 1971, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He indicated in his request that he understood that he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, that he might be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration and that he might be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  He also acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an undesirable discharge.  He elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.  In summary, he stated that he went AWOL for stupid reasons (he was scared and ran, he could not adjust to the military, he did not like the Army, and he did not want to kill anyone).      

5.  On 28 October 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. 

6.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 
2 November 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He had served a total of 1 year of creditable active service with 38 days of lost time due to being AWOL.  His DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows that he was separated on temporary records.  

7.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that 
a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  At the time, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate. 

9.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Since the applicant’s record of service included 38 days of lost time, his record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge or a general discharge.

2.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.    

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___xx___  ___xx___  ___xx___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.




 _   _______xxxx_____________
       CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.



ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080007255





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080007255



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008183

    Original file (20080008183.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 July 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080008183 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 26 May 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for a general discharge. Since the applicant’s record of service included one nonjudicial punishment and 315 days of lost time, his record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080009393

    Original file (20080009393.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 20 July 1971, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel). He further stated that he would go AWOL again if the Army would not let him out. The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008247

    Original file (20080008247.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 16 October 1973, the applicant was discharged from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service with an undesirable discharge. On 10 September 1974 and 16 April 1986, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005213

    Original file (20080005213.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. There is no evidence of record to show he completed airborne training (which would have made him eligible for award of the Parachutist Badge), and he admitted in his ADRB application that he did not complete Special Forces training. No other training or schools are recorded in his files.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008443C070205

    Original file (20060008443C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 29 October 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 4 November 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. Since the applicant’s record of service included 321 days of lost time, his record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006732

    Original file (20090006732.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 27 March 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011376

    Original file (20060011376.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 20 July 1971, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. On 3 August 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 10 August 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011900

    Original file (20080011900.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 22 December 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. Although the applicant contends that his discharge should be changed to a medical discharge due to pneumonia he acquired during his service, there is no evidence of record to show he was ever medically unfit to perform his duties. As a result, his record of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011997

    Original file (20080011997.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. However, his DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged on 21 June 1973 under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) by reason of in lieu of trial by court-martial with an undesirable discharge and service characterized as under other than honorable conditions. However, his records show that he was received one Article 15 and had a lengthy AWOL during his...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002103C070206

    Original file (20050002103C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 26 February 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued an undesirable discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 22 March 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. The applicant’s record of service included five nonjudicial punishments and 171 days of lost time.