IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 3 November 2009
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090009656
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 a general discharge.
2. The applicant states that he was in jail receiving psychiatric treatment at the time of his discharge and that he was never given the opportunity to appeal his discharge.
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 29 July 1977 for a period of 4 years. He successfully completed basic combat training, advanced individual training, and basic airborne training in military occupational specialty 11C (indirect fire infantryman).
3. On 16 August 1978, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for possessing marijuana. His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1 and extra duty.
4. On 14 April 1979, the applicant was arrested by civil authorities in Virginia and charged with assault and battery. He was released on bond.
5. On 21 April 1979, the applicant was arrested by civil authorities in North Carolina and charged with larceny. He was released on bond pending trial.
6. The applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) on 4 May 1979 and returned to military control on 7 May 1979.
7. On 9 May 1979, the applicant was arrested by civil authorities in North Carolina and charged with larceny. On 15 May 1979, he was convicted of larceny and sentenced to confinement for 6-18 months.
8. The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicants discharge are not contained in the available records. However, the applicant's DD Form 214 (Report of Separation form Active Duty) shows he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 7 September 1979 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 14, for misconduct due to civil conviction. He had served 1 year, 8 months, and 26 days of total active service with 133 days of lost time due to confinement and AWOL.
9. There is no indication in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
10. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense (military or civilian), and convictions by civil authorities. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.
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 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) AR20090009656
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090009656
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130006242
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 | CY2006 | 20060006932C070205
On 3 May 1979, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending that he be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12(a) for misconduct - conviction by civil authorities. On 14 July 1982 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110012823
On 30 March 1961, he was convicted by civil authorities and sentenced to serve 6 months under the custody of the North Carolina State Prison. On 24 May 1961, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations Discharge Misconduct) due to his conviction by civil authorities. There is no evidence in the available records to show the applicant applied to the Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084226C070212
On 12 April 1976, the applicant's commander submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to conviction by civil authorities. Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, for misconduct – conviction by civil authorities. 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 his discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014662
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. There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017959
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board and directed the applicant's discharge by reason of misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, with a UOTHC character of service. An honorable or general discharge may be awarded by the separation authority if warranted by the member's overall record of service; however, a discharge UOTHC is normally...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100000289
Accordingly, on 3 January 1983, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, due to conviction by a civil court. The available evidence does not show the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. ____________X____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete...
USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00701
The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. This action was the basis for his administrative separation due to the commission of a serious offense.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100029886
He goes on to state that at the time he was 22 years of age and the incident for which he was charged occurred in 1986 when he was 14 years of age. On 1 October 1997, after reviewing all of the available evidence in his case, the ADRB determined that his discharge was both proper and equitable under the circumstances and voted unanimously to deny his request for an upgrade of his discharge. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016179
The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge. However, the available records do contain a duly-authenticated DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) which shows the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 25 October 1979 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. There is no evidence in the available records to show...