BOARD DATE: 29 October 2009
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090011888
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, upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to a general, under honorable conditions discharge.
2. The applicant states, in effect, that during his court-martial he was told he would be discharged with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He further states that when records personnel prepared his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) they incorrectly entered his character of service.
3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 and a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United Sates) 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's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on
11 September 1968. His record shows that he was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).
3. The applicant's DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows in Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) that he earned the National Defense Service Medal and the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.
4. The applicant's records document no acts of valor or significant achievement.
5. On 11 February 1969, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) for being absent without leave (AWOL) for the period 5 January 1969 to
14 January 1969. His punishment for this offense consisted of a forfeiture of $23.00 per month for one month.
6. Headquarters, Troop Command, USAG [U.S. Army Garrison], Fort Carson, CO, Special Court-Martial Order Number 1410, dated 28 July 1969, shows the applicant was found guilty of being AWOL during the period 30 April 1969 to 25 June 1969. His sentence for this offense consisted of confinement at hard labor for 2 months and forfeiture of $85.00 per month for two months.
7. Headquarters, Troop Command, USAG, Fort Carson, Special Court-Martial Order Number 427, dated 26 March 1970, shows the applicant was found guilty of being AWOL during the period 10 August 1969 to 6 March 1970. His sentence for this offense consisted of confinement to hard labor for 6 months.
8. The applicants records contain a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 26 August 1970, which indicates he was charged for being AWOL during the period 8 July 1970 to 20 August 1970.
9. On 31 August 1970, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and he 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 undesirable discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him. Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel,
the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation
635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel).
10. In his request for discharge, he acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request was approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the
Veterans Administration, and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law, and that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.
11. On 20 October 1970, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 28 October 1970, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time of his discharge confirms he completed a total 10 months and 25 days of creditable active military service with 371 days of lost time.
12. On 28 July 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), after careful consideration of the applicants military records and all other available evidence, determined that the applicant's discharge was proper and equitable and denied his appeal.
13. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge, could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial charges were preferred,. Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service. Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses charged, type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of Veterans Administration benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge. An undesirable discharge certificate would normally be furnished an individual who was discharged for the good of the Service.
14. 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:
1. The applicant's contention that he was told during his court-martial that he would receive a general under honorable conditions discharge and that records personnel incorrectly annotated his DD Form 214 was carefully considered and found to be without merit.
2. Although the sincerity of the applicant's contention is not in question, the evidence of record shows that the separation approval authority directed that he receive an undesirable discharge.
2. Evidence shows the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
3. The applicant's administrative discharge was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
4. Based on his record of indiscipline which includes 371 days of lost time, the applicant's service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. This misconduct also renders his service unsatisfactory. Lacking evidence to the contrary, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to grant the applicant's requested relief. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to a general under honorable conditions discharge.
5. In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
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) AR20090011888
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089610C070403
Accordingly, on 26 September 1974, the applicant was discharged from the Army with an undesirable discharge. He was credited with 1 year, 5 months, and 16 days of active military service and 1, 833 days of lost time. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year statute...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001855
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 April 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090001855 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The assistant adjutant stated the applicant had had one request for a hardship discharge denied and that the applicant stated he would continue to go AWOL until he was discharged. On 2 April 1971, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) for the good of the service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073717C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: This program, known as the DOD Discharge Review Program (Special) (SDRP) required, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, that a discharge upgrade to either honorable or general be issued in the case of any individual who had either completed a normal tour of duty in Southeast Asia, been wounded in action, been...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091840C070212
The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request to change his undesirable discharge to a medical discharge or he requests his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. On 5 October 1971, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge. When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017073
The applicant provides: * 2 self-authored statements * Reference letter, dated 27 August 2012 * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated 18 June 2012 * General Discharge Certificate * Letter, U.S. Army Office of the Adjutant General, dated 16 October 1978 * Presidential Pardon, dated 23 August 1975 * DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) * Letter, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), dated 23 December...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016360
On 9 July 1970 he departed AWOL again. The service members record doesnt contain any evidence he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board to have his discharge upgraded. However, his claim of his young age at the time of induction or his desire to obtain VA benefits are not sufficiently mitigating to justify upgrading his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120019372
The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to a general discharge or an honorable discharge. He pleaded not guilty to all specifications and charges and was found guilty of: * Charge I, Specifications 1 and 2 * Charge II, Specification 2 * Charge IV c. He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 6 months. On 15 January 1971, the separation authority approved his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080001931
The applicant's military personnel record shows that at the age of 18, he enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 January 1969 for a period of 2 years. The applicant was assigned to the U.S. Army Depot in Thailand during the period from 14 September 1970 to 13 February 1971. At the time he went AWOL he was 23 years of age.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004752C070206
The applicant requests, in effect, that all of the blocks on his DD Form 214 be completed and that he be provided an explanation of why he received a discharge under other than honorable conditions. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge on 11 January 1974 and that board found that his discharge was both proper and equitable and denied his request on 6 February 1974. That regulation also provided that information blocks contained on the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011937
After his over 3 years of honorable service and his combat record, he should have received help instead of the discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 3-7b, also provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and the evidence shows that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge.