Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017970
Original file (20080017970.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
	
		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	        23 April 2009
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080017970 


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, in effect, that her under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge under the provisions Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial, be upgraded to general under honorable conditions and that the reason for separation be changed to chapter 11 for entry level separation.

2.  The applicant states that she was mistreated, abused and sexually harassed. Drill Sergeant G____ would come into her room without knocking or announcing himself.  He made her strip the floor and re-wax it on three occasions.  He made her do physical training (PT) while she was on profile.  She thinks he did these things because she rebuffed his advances.  When she inquired of Drill Sergeant M____ as to how she could get out of this situation, she was advised to be absent without leave (AWOL) for 30 days.  She was told she would receive a chapter 11 discharge.  The next thing she knew she was getting a chapter 10.  She did not know anything about this and she was not being court-martialed.  She believes that this was done by Lieutenant Colonel B______ to cover-up for his cadre.  She did go AWOL, but she did so because it was the only way to escape an intolerable situation.  She would like to enlist and serve her country again.  

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation in support of her request. 




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 for 4 years and entered active duty on 15 October 2002.  

3.  She completed basic training but during advanced individual training she was AWOL from 16 March 2003 until her surrender on 16 April 2003.  

4.  When charges for that offense were preferred under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to her.  Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  

5.  In her request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, she indicated that she understood that by requesting discharge she was admitting guilt to the charge against her or to a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  She further acknowledged she understood that if her discharge request was approved, she could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that she could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and that she could be deprived of her rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.
  
6.  The battery commander recommended approval of the applicant's request and issuance of an UOTHC discharge.  The applicant was subsequently placed on voluntary excess leave status on 25 April 2003 pending disposition of her 

request for discharge.  The discharge authority approved her request for discharge and directed that the applicant be reduced to pay grade E-1 and separated with an UOTHC discharge.  On 23 July 2003, the applicant was duly separated with an UOTHC discharge.  She had 8 months and 9 days of creditable active service and 31 days of time lost due to AWOL.

7.  On 8 December 2004, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request to upgrade her discharge.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Active Duty Enlisted
Administrative Separations) 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, chapter 11, establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members because of unsatisfactory performance or conduct (or both) while in an entry level status.  It states, in pertinent part, that separation under this chapter applies to Soldiers who are in an entry level status and, before the date of the initiation of separation action, have completed no more than 180 days of continuous active duty and have demonstrated that they cannot or will not adapt socially or emotionally to military life.  It further states that the character of service for members separated under the provisions of this chapter will be uncharacterized.

10.  The Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), Table of Maximum Punishments, sets forth the maximum punishments for offenses chargeable under the UCMJ.  It states, in pertinent part, that a punitive discharge is authorized for any AWOL in excess of 30 days.

11.  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 contends that she was mistreated, abused, and sexually harassed.  She states she did go AWOL, but she did so because it was the only way to escape an intolerable situation.  She further states she would like to enlist to serve her country again.

2.  The applicant's contentions have been noted; however, there is no evidence of record and the applicant provided no evidence to support her contentions. 

3.  Her voluntary request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  There is no indication that the applicant's request was made under coercion or duress.

4.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize her rights.

5.  Entry level separation under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11 is not appropriate in this case.  The applicant committed an offense that in a trial by court-martial could have resulted in a punitive discharge.  She voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial for that offense.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore 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.



      _________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)                                         AR20080017970



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080017970



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005820

    Original file (20080005820.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that the reentry (RE) code of 4 she was assigned at discharge be changed to RE-3. It states, in pertinent part, that the SPD code KFS is the appropriate code to assign to Soldiers separated under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial. There is no evidence of record or independent evidence submitted by the applicant that confirms the illness of her grandmother, or that shows she ever requested and was...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001474

    Original file (20150001474.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On or about 30 November 1984, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to her. The available evidence shows she was just over 17 years of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010215C070208

    Original file (20040010215C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that her discharge be upgraded. On 10 February 1982 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for upgrade of her 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 the Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070013461

    Original file (20070013461.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    She further understand that there is no automatic upgrading or review by any Government agency of a less than honorable discharge and that she must apply to the Army Discharge Review Board or the Army Board for Correction of Military Records if she wished review of her discharge. On 19 January 2006, the approving authority approved the applicant's request and directed the applicant be discharged in lieu of trail by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010276

    Original file (20080010276.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge authority also directed that, in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-13, that the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and that all charges be dismissed effective the date of her discharge. A punitive discharge is authorized for offenses under Article 86, for periods of AWOL in excess of 30 days. _______ _ X _______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086191C070212

    Original file (2003086191C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, he evidently requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial for the good of the service, and that request was accepted. As for the applicant’s earlier periods of active service, he accepted NJP twice during each enlistment. The applicant’s post service conduct has been carefully considered by the Board.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010884

    Original file (20100010884.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant was discharged on 16 September 1982 with a UOTHC discharge. The honorable characterization of service is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty; b. paragraph 3-7b states that a general discharge (GD) is a separation under honorable conditions issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not so meritorious as to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008658

    Original file (20090008658.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, as follows: a. on 2 July 1982, for being absent without leave (AWOL) for 1 day and b. on 12 August 1982, for being AWOL for 14 days. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The applicant has provided no documentation and the record contains no indication to support the applicant's allegations that he was...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2012 | AR20120020054

    Original file (AR20120020054.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: Ms. BOARD DATE: 17 April 2013 CASE NUMBER: AR20120020054 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of her service to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070014111C080407

    Original file (20070014111C080407.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The evidence of record shows that after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. The evidence of record further shows the applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in her receiving a punitive discharge. The UOTHC discharge the applicant received was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance, and her overall record of service was not...