Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080019886
Original file (20080019886.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080019886 


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 an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states that his age, living situation, and parents' alcohol issues contributed to his actions.  He states that he was a model Soldier except for being absent without leave (AWOL).

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) 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 in the Regular Army on 26 May 1981 at the age of 17.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13F (fire support specialist).  His highest grade held was private, E-1.

3.  On 10 December 1981, charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 7 September 1981 to 8 December 1981.

4.  On 11 December 1981, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offense charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and that he might be ineligible for many or all Army benefits administered by the Veterans Administration if a UOTHC discharge was issued.  He did not submit statements in his own behalf.

5.  On 22 December 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with the issuance of a UOTHC Discharge Certificate.

6.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged from active duty on 12 January 1982 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a UOTHC discharge.  He had completed 4 months and 16 days of active military service with 91 days of lost time due to AWOL.

7.  There is no evidence which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board 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 UOTHC 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, 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 contention that his age, living situation, and parents' alcohol issues contributed to his actions is noted.  However, these issues are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief in this case.

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.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

3.  The applicant's record of service shows he was AWOL for 91 days.  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 for either a fully honorable or general under honorable conditions discharge.

4.  There is no evidence of record which indicates the actions taken in his case were in error or unjust; therefore, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge to honorable.

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)                                         AR20080019886



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080019886



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017853

    Original file (20110017853.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 26 April 1982, the applicant was advised by his unit commander that he was initiating action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 14 for misconduct. There is no evidence that indicates he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge. _______ _ __x_____ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011420

    Original file (20060011420.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 30 November 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions. ___Ted Kanamine_____ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20060011420 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20070227 TYPE OF DISCHARGE UOTHC DATE OF DISCHARGE 19811218 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR 635-200 Chapter 10 DISCHARGE REASON For the good of the service, in lieu of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016201

    Original file (20130016201.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Records show he was 21 years of age at the time of his last offense.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120012573

    Original file (20120012573.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013202

    Original file (20060013202.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable or general discharge. On 2 December 1981, the applicant 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 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel). The evidence of record also shows that the applicant failed to complete the training he requested when he enlisted in the Army.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100015412

    Original file (20100015412.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge (HD). Although an HD or a general discharge (GD) is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate. The evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for upgrade of his UOTHC discharge to an HD.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018016

    Original file (20100018016.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. On 9 September 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant contends his UOTHC discharge should be upgraded to general because he believes his medical condition caused the misbehavior that resulted in his discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014904

    Original file (20100014904.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. On 6 April 1981, 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 a UOTHC discharge in pay grade E-1. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, stated an honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011349

    Original file (20140011349.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He acknowledged that he was guilty of the charges or lesser included charges and that, if the request was accepted; he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) Discharge Certificate. Army Regulation 15–185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Army Board for Correction of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140020794

    Original file (20140020794.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to a general discharge. The regulations stated in: a.