IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 9 March 2010
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090015644
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 an upgrade of his under other than honorable discharge to a fully honorable discharge. He also requests a personal hearing.
2. The applicant states he would like to reenter military service in order to serve his country. He adds that the allegations that were made against him at the time were damaging, but there were decisions he needed to make with respect to his family. However, he is now divorced, willing, able, and ready to serve his country.
3. The applicant did not provide any additional documentary evidence 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 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's records show he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years on 7 February 2001. He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 91B (Medical Specialist). The highest rank/grade he attained during his military service was private first class/E-3. He was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry, Italy.
3. The applicant's records also show he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, and the Parachutist Badge.
4. On 24 June 2002, court-martial charges preferred against the applicant for one specification of committing sodomy with another Soldier by force and without his consent on or about 21 October 2001, one specification of committing an indecent assault upon another Soldier by fondling the other Soldier's testicles with intent to gratify his lust and sexual desires on or about 17 March 2002, and one specification of committing an indecent assault upon another Soldier by fondling the other Soldier's penis while the Soldier was asleep with intent to gratify his lust and sexual desires on or about 29 May 2002.
5. On 27 June 2002, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct discharge or a discharge under other than honorable conditions, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the possible effects of a request for discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him. Following consultation with legal counsel, he requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial in accordance with chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations).
6. In his request for discharge, the applicant acknowledged that he was making this request of his own free will and had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person. He also indicated he understood that by requesting discharge he was admitting guilt to the charges against him or of a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a discharge under other than honorable conditions. He further acknowledged he understood that if the 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 Department of Veterans Affairs, and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws. His request also stated, "Moreover, I hereby state that under no circumstances do I desire further rehabilitation, for I have no desire to perform further military service."
7. On 3 July 2002, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service in accordance with chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 and directed he receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and be reduced the lowest enlisted grade. On 17 July 2002, the applicant was accordingly discharged. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions. This form further confirms he completed 1 year, 5 months, and 11 days of creditable active military service.
8. On 6 August 2004, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's petition for an upgrade of his discharge.
9. On 15 March 2005, the applicant failed to appear before his scheduled ADRB personal appearance hearing in Dallas, TX. Accordingly, on 23 March 2005, the ADRB closed his case administratively.
10. 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 under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) governs the operations of the ABCMR. Paragraph 2-11 of this regulation states that applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The regulation provides that the Director of the ABCMR or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing before which the applicant, counsel, and witnesses may appear whenever justice requires.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant contends that his discharge should be upgraded so he may reenter military service.
2. The applicant's request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered. However, by regulation, an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the Board. Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the Board or by the Director of the ABCMR. In this case, it is concluded that the evidence of record and independent evidence provided by the applicant is sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision at this time. As a result, it is concluded that a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case.
3. The applicant's record shows he was charged with the commission of offenses punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. Discharges under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant voluntarily, willingly, and in writing requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, the applicant's discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.
4. The ABCMR does not correct records for the purpose of establishing entitlements to other programs or benefits. In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant did not submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
5. Based on his record of indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. This misconduct also renders his service unsatisfactory. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to either a general or an honorable discharge.
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) AR20090015644
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090015644
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017061
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 30 July 1975, the separation authority approved his request for discharge 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 General Discharge Certificate. His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial on 12 August 1975 with an under honorable conditions...
ARMY | DRB | CY2003 | AR2003099006
Remarks: NONE SECTION B - Prior Service Data NONE Other discharge(s): Service From To Type Discharge PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW SECTION A-ANALYST’S ASSESSMENT l. Facts and Circumstances: a. It also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge. Minority views: NONE PART VII - BOARD ACTION SECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006945
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 December 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140006945 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his dishonorable discharge to a general, under honorable conditions discharge. It stipulates that a Soldier will be given a dishonorable discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general court-martial and that the appellate review must be completed and affirmed before the sentence is ordered duly executed.
NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00686
ND99-00686 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990427, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. Specification 3: In that HN D_ L. E_ did, at the Naval Hospital Pensacola, Florida, on or about April 1995, commit an indecent assault upon K_ R. G_ a person not his wife, by sliding his hands up and down her leg, with the intent to gratify his lust or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110015910
The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge. He goes on to state that he completed 15 years of military service. Chapter 10 provides 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 at any time after charges have been preferred.
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080005514
Applicant Name: ????? On 18 May 2006, the separation authority approved the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. It is also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge.
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060013020
Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. On 25 July 2000, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) accepted the applicant's resignation, approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board, and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The appropriate authority approved the applicant's request and issuance of a general, under than honorable conditions characterization of service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064786C070421
Because of his conviction, the applicant could not reenlist without a waiver approved by PERSCOM. Pertinent Army regulations state that the authority to grant a waiver of a court-martial conviction disqualification for enlistment rests with PERSCOM. The evidence shows that he was sufficiently informed to know that he required a waiver to reenlist, and that he had the option of requesting relief from his conviction under Article 69(b), UCMJ.
USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600198
The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). 980305: SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.980306: GCMCA, Commanding General, MCRD/WRR San Diego,approved the Applicant's request for discharge and directed his discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of separation in lieu of trial by court-martial. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007346
Headquarters, United States Army Training Center and Fort Jackson, General General-Martial Order Number 13, dated 10 December 1998, shows that on 24 January 1998 the applicant was sentenced to be reduced to the grade of E-1, to forfeit all pay, and allowances; to be confined for 6 months, and to be discharged from the service with a bad conduct discharge. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable...