IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 6 November 2008
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080013528
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 a general discharge.
2. The applicant states, in effect, that when he was discharged he was told his discharge would be upgraded from undesirable to a general discharge. He points out that he was young, that he did not get court-martialed, that he served his country to the best of his ability, and that he went absent without leave (AWOL) a couple of times.
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 applicants 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 applicants failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.
2. The applicant was born on 3 October 1952. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 July 1972 for a period of 3 years. He successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual training in military occupational specialty 63B (wheel vehicle mechanic). He arrived in Korea on 19 December 1972.
3. On 28 February 1973, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL for 9 hours. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.
4. On 24 August 1973, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for disobeying a lawful order. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.
5. The applicant departed Korea on 18 December 1973.
6. The applicant went AWOL on 8 May 1974 and returned to military control on
5 August 1974. On 15 August 1974, charges were preferred against the applicant for the AWOL period.
7. On 22 August 1974, 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 (now known as the Department of Veterans Affairs) 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 the Army messed up his life, that he was having family and financial problems while serving in Korea, and that he went AWOL because he was not doing the Army any good and he needed to straighten things out at home.
8. On 29 August 1974, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge.
9. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on
3 September 1974 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. He had served a total of 1 year, 10 months, and
6 days of creditable active service with 100 days of lost time due to being AWOL.
10. On 8 January 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicants request for a discharge upgrade.
11. 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.
12. 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 Soldiers separation specifically allows such characterization.
13. The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. Age is not a sufficiently mitigating factor. The applicant was almost 20 years old when he enlisted and he successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual training.
2. A discharge upgrade is not automatic.
3. Since the applicants record of service included two nonjudicial punishments and 100 days of lost time, his record of service was not satisfactory. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant a general discharge.
4. The applicants 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.
5. 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
____X____ ____X____ ____X____ 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) AR20080013528
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080013528
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009753
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016512
The error in his record is based on a request [for leave] and the illness of his father during his assignment in Korea. On 14 May 1974, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-5a(4), for unfitness an established pattern of shirking with the issuance of an undesirable discharge characterized as under other than honorable conditions. The applicant's discharge proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-5a(4)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021243
The applicant requests, in effect, his undesirable discharge (dated 20 November 1974) and discharge under other than honorable conditions (dated 16 September 1981) be upgraded to a general discharge. _______ _ _X______ ___ 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) AR20090010900 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080001446
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 23 April 1975, 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. There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001425
On 29 January 1974, the applicant consulted with counsel and requested a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations). The Board considered the applicants reenlistment occurred after he served in Vietnam. The applicants record shows he received nonjudicial punishment a special court-martial conviction, and 99 days of lost time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008152
The applicant requests his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general under honorable conditions discharge. COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE: The Disabled American Veterans (DAV), as counsel for the applicant, states the following: * Race played a factor in the military in 1975 * The applicants mother was sick and could not take care of herself or provide for herself * The applicants conduct during his subsequent discharge was exemplary * The applicant is now a changed man...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100030411
On 25 February 1974, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. On 4 March 1974, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed the issuance of an undesirable discharge. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080019099
On 4 February 1974, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 13 March 1974 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. Since the applicants record of service included five nonjudicial punishments, one special court-martial conviction, and 357 days of lost time, his record of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018209
On 5 August 1974, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. 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. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012484
In his request for discharge, he acknowledged he understood if the discharge request were approved, he might be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. There is no evidence he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the...