Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013949
Original file (20080013949.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	        20 November 2008

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080013949 


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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he made one mistake and that he deserves a second chance. 

3.  The applicant provides a Military Training Certificate; a newspaper article; diplomas for the Basic Noncommissioned Officer Course and Primary Noncommissioned Officer Course; and a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

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 in the Regular Army on 23 May 1979 for a period of 
3 years.  He successfully completed One Station Unit Training in military occupational specialty 13B (cannon crewman).

3.  On 7 January 1982, charges were preferred against the applicant for three specifications of selling marijuana and one specification of possessing marijuana. Trial by special court-martial was recommended. 

4.  On 24 February 1982, the applicant consulted with counsel and requested 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 he might be discharged under conditions other than honorable and furnished an under other than honorable discharge certificate; that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (now known as the Department of Veterans Affairs); that he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits; and that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  He also acknowledged that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.  

5.  On 3 March 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

6.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 8 March 1982 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial.  He had served a total of 2 years, 9 months, and 16 days of creditable active service.

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, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the 
individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is 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.  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.  He had an opportunity to submit a statement in which he could have voiced his concerns; however he elected not to do so.  

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

3.  The applicant’s record of service includes serious offenses which led to special court-martial charges.  As a result, 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.

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.




      _______ _XXX   _______   ___
               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)                                         AR20080013949





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080013949



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008693

    Original file (20140008693.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions. On 11 August 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge and directed the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions. There is no evidence that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026221

    Original file (20100026221.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. _______ _ 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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120013295

    Original file (20120013295.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable. On 26 January 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge and directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009816

    Original file (20120009816.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable or a general discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012245

    Original file (20140012245.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions. There is no evidence that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016432

    Original file (20130016432.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    BOARD DATE: 10 June 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130016432 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 24 June 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge and directed the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120003858

    Original file (20120003858.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 20 April 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge and directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. There is no evidence that shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017322

    Original file (20140017322.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. 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 Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 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 | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016689

    Original file (20130016689.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions. On 21 April 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge and directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 27 April 1982, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009375

    Original file (20130009375.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 24 June 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge and directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.