IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 1 July 2009
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090004052
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.
2. The applicant states that he received a Good Conduct Medal while in the Army, that he returned after going absent without leave (AWOL), and that he wants to reenlist.
3. The applicant provides a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States) 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 October 1984 for a period of 3 years. He was honorably discharged on 21 April 1987 for immediate reenlistment. He reenlisted on 22 April 1987 for a period of 6 years.
3. On 13 May 1987, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for stealing checks (nine specifications) and forgery (nine specifications). His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4, a forfeiture of pay, and extra duty.
4. The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicants discharge are not contained in the available records. However, the applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release of Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 18 January 1989 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial. He had served 4 years and 26 days of creditable active service with 83 days of lost time due to AWOL. His DD Form 214 shows he received the Good Conduct Medal.
5. There is no indication in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.
6. 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. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
7. 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 members 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.
8. 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.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicants separation was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. Without having the discharge packet to consider, it is presumed his characterization of service was commensurate with his overall record of service. As a result, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
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) AR20090004052
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090004052
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110013662
The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of her discharge from under honorable conditions (general) to honorable. On 24 September 1987, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. _______ _ 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 | CY2006 | 20060010407C071029
Donald L. Lewy | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant states he was discharged with an honorable discharge his first enlistment. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110002295
The applicant requests upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 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 | CY2009 | 20090005539
On 20 November 1987, the applicant consulted with counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The available evidence shows the applicant was punished under the UCMJ on two occasions, charged with being AWOL, and had 110 days of lost time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070000040
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 May 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070000040 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Member Mr. James R. Hastie Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 18 March 1987, the applicants commander recommended that he be separated from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080009486
The applicant requests that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable with a corresponding change in his Separation Designator Code (SPD). On 8 April 1987, 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 (Enlisted Personnel Separations), chapter 10. Army policy states that although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011660
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 24 April 1987, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a voluntary request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations), chapter 10. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005260
On 20 November 1987, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL during the period from 6 April to 18 November 1987. Army Regulation 635-200 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090797C070212
Accordingly, she was discharged under honorable conditions on 14 August 1987, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001400
The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to an honorable or 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. His record of service shows he went AWOL for over 2 months.