Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014662
Original file (20080014662.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  	  13 November 2008

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080014662 


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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general under honorable conditions.  

2.  The applicant states that his civilian conviction was handled by the State of North Carolina from Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  

3.  The applicant provides a supplemental letter, dated 15 August 2008; his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty); and statements from a Public Health Advisor, Womack Army Hospital.  

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 21 October 1977.  At the completion of basic training and advanced individual training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 36C (wire system installer/operator).  He later completed basic airborne training.  His highest grade attained was specialist four.  He was honorably discharged on 28 August 1980 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.

3.  The applicant reenlisted on 29 August 1980 for a period of four years.  

4.  On 20 November 1980, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 15 October 1980 to 16 October 1980 and five specifications of failing to go to his appointed place of duty.

5.  On 3 April 1981, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for being AWOL from 25 March 1981 to 30 March 1981.

6.  On 13 February 1982, the applicant was charged with breaking or entering and larceny in the State of North Carolina, County of Cumberland District Court.  He was sentenced to confinement for 3 years in the North Carolina Department of Corrections with four years suspension, four years probation, and a fine of $776.00.

7.  His service personnel records contain a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 28 January 1983, which shows he was confined to the Cumberland County Jail, Fayetteville, North Carolina from 26 January 1983 to 31 January 1983 for violation of parole and failure to pay debts.  

8.  On 5 April 1983, the company commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-5 by reason of conviction by a civil court.  He was advised of his rights.

9.  On 12 May 1983, the approving authority recommended that a board of officers be convened to determine if the applicant should be separated due to conviction by civil court based on Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, section II.  The applicant was notified to appear before a board of officers on 19 May 1983.  The results of the board of officers are not available.  

10.  On 5 August 1983, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for failing to obey a lawful order and for being disrespectful in language toward his superior noncommissioned officer.  

11.  The applicant's complete discharge packet is not available.  However, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 24 August 1983 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, section II by reason of civil conviction.  He had completed a total of 5 years, 9 months, and 6 days of creditable active service with 29 days of lost time due to AWOL and civil confinement.  

12.  There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  That regulation provides, in pertinent part, for the elimination of enlisted personnel for misconduct when they are initially convicted by civil authorities, or action taken against them which is tantamount to a finding of guilty, if a punitive discharge would be authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial, or the sentence by civil authorities includes confinement of 6 months or more, without regard to suspension or probation.  A discharge UOTHC was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.  However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record.  Only a general court-martial convening authority may approve an honorable discharge or delegate approval authority for an honorable discharge under this provision of regulation.

14.  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.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2.  The applicant was found guilty by a civil court in February 1982 for breaking or entering and larceny.  He was sentenced to confinement for 3 years with four years suspension, four years probation, and he was fined.

3.  The applicant's service records show he received three Article 15s during the period under review and was confined to the Cumberland County Jail, Fayetteville, North Carolina from 26 January 1983 to 31 January 1983 for violation of parole and failure to pay debts.  

4.  It appears the chain of command determined that the applicant's overall military service did not meet the standards for a general under honorable conditions discharge as defined in Army Regulation 635-200 and appropriately characterized his service as UOTHC.  

5.  There is no evidence submitted or evidence of record which shows the actions taken in this case were in error or unjust.  

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)                                         AR20080014662





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080014662



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018844

    Original file (20100018844.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general discharge. However, his service record shows he was arrested twice and convicted once by civil authorities and he was convicted by a general court-martial for wrongful distribution of marijuana during the period under review. His character references were also acknowledged; however, these documents are insufficient as a basis to grant the relief requested.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130006242

    Original file (20130006242.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 April 1979 for a period of 3 years, training as a telecommunications center operator, and assignment to the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012368

    Original file (20090012368.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Army Regulation 635-5 (Personnel Separations - Separation Documents) prescribes the separation documents that must be prepared for Soldiers on retirement, discharge, release from active duty service, or control of the Active Army. It states, in pertinent part, the source documents for entering information on the DD Form 214 will be the Enlisted/Officer Record Brief (ERB/ORB), separation approval authority documentation, separation orders, or any other document authorized for filing in the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080000679

    Original file (20080000679.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states that there was no error. COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE: The counsel identified on the applicant’s application has not provided any statement or evidence. On 7 December 1983, the applicant’s commander recommended separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, due to civilian conviction.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080009580

    Original file (20080009580.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel concludes by stating that noting the inequitable nature of the applicant's discharge, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) voted to upgrade the characterization of his service to honorable; however, his narrative reason for discharge and his RE code were not changed. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. The applicant's records show...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018424

    Original file (20080018424.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for misconduct (fraudulent entry, conviction by civil court, and absence without leave or desertion). In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130005090

    Original file (20130005090.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the memorandum, counsel requested that the applicant's CO state with specificity the overriding circumstances that existed to convene a board against a Soldier who had 19 years, 11 months, and 21 days of service. On 17 July 1998, a board of officers convened to determine whether the applicant should be discharged from the Army due to his conviction by a civil court. Accordingly, on 24 July 1998, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012253

    Original file (20140012253.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 10 May 1973, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation due to civil court conviction and directed that the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. c. An individual discharged for conviction by a civil court normally was furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, however, an honorable or General Discharge Certificate could be furnished if the individual being discharged had been awarded a personal decoration, or if warranted by the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002724C070205

    Original file (20060002724C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Roland S. Venable | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 7 June 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | AR20110017169

    Original file (AR20110017169.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(1) by reason of misconduct, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c by reason of misconduct, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.