IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 17 December 2009
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090011825
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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.
2. The applicant states that he was under a lot of stress while on active duty because he was going through a divorce. He thought he was going to be given a general discharge, and he was surprised when he was issued a DD Form 214 which showed he was given an undesirable discharge.
3. The applicant does not provide anything in support of his 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 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's military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 February 1978 and was awarded the military occupational specialty of infantryman.
3. He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, on three occasions for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 2 to 4 October 1979; for assaulting a polizei (German police officer) by striking him in the face with his closed fist; for being drunk and disorderly in a public place; and for disobeying a lawful command.
4. On 18 October 1981, the applicant was arrested by the military police and charged with communicating a threat against the military policeman (telling him that he was going to kill him); resisting apprehension (tried to drive off after he was told to come out of the car); and driving while intoxicated. On the military police report it was stated that after arrest and restraint, the applicant became belligerent and had to be placed in a jail cell.
5. On 21 October 1981, the applicant's commander notified him of his intent to recommend his discharge due to misconduct and of his rights in conjunction with that recommendation. Those rights included requesting a board of officers to consider his case because he could receive a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). The applicant waived his rights.
6. The appropriate authority approved the applicant's commander's recommendation. Accordingly, on 9 December 1981 the applicant was discharged UOTHC for misconduct.
7. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) 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 consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions), a pattern of misconduct (consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline), commission of a serious offense, 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. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldiers 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.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's repeated acts of serious misconduct certainly warranted a discharge UOTHC.
2. While the applicant states that he believed that he was going to be given a general discharge, he was given the right to a board of officers because he was being considered for a discharge UOTHC.
3. The applicant has not submitted any evidence that he was in the process of a divorce while he was on active duty. However, even if he had it would not form the basis for upgrading his discharge. The Army has resources for Soldiers going through divorces or experiencing other forms of life problems. Having a problem is never an excuse for acts of misconduct.
4. In view of the foregoing, 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) AR20090011825
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090011825
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
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 | CY2013 | 20130008615
The applicant was discharged UOTHC on 25 August 1981 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. b. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation under honorable conditions issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not so meritorious as to warrant an honorable discharge. d. Paragraph 3-7c(7) specifically addresses issuance of a discharge UOTHC under the provisions of chapter 10. e. Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002387
His discharge packet is not available for review; however, his record contains a DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 29 May 1981 in the rank/grade of private (PV1)/E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010756
The Chief, Investigations Division (ID), United States Army Central Personnel Security Clearance Facility, notified the applicant on 8 January 2002, of his intent to revoke his security clearance. The rater stated once he was assigned and mobilized on 8 December 2001, the USJFCOM initiated the security management process and that the United States Army Central Personnel Security Clearance Facility announced their intent to revoke his security clearance on 8 January 2002. His records show...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080009197
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 25 June 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed he be issued an Undesirable Discharge. However, at the time of separation, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012412
The applicant provides a 24 October 2006 Psychiatric Narrative Summary, a 31 October 2006 MEB Proceedings, a 6 November 2003 Physical Profile, a 6 November 2006 Physical Condition Duty Evaluation, a 5 December 2006 Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings, a Social Security Administration disability award letter, 10 civilian police reports or court orders, three Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rating decision documents, and an Oklahoma Department of Public Safety suspension order. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070018620
On 6 April 1983, and again on 3 May 1983, the applicants commander initiated action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. On 6 May 1983, the applicants commander formally recommended that the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13. On 21 June 1983, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-3, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027637
On 12 March 1982, his unit commander notified him of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, based on misconduct - fraudulent entry due to concealment of a civil conviction at time of enlistment. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. He was discharged from military service under the provisions...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140021438
The board recommended the applicant be separated based on his convictions by civilian authorities, multiple intentional periods of AWOL, and excessive time lost. In his statement he indicated he left Vietnam to go home to his wife and child because his wife had filed for divorce and was writing bad checks. The Board notes that the applicant was 21 years of age, had satisfactorily completed training, had served in Vietnam and was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016231
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states he returned to the United States from an assignment in Berlin, GE and he had 45 days of leave en route to his new assignment at Fort Lewis, WA. The record shows he reported to Fort Lewis and he was assigned to Company B, 2nd Battalion, 47th Infantry on 4 April 1983.