Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017828
Original file (20090017828.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  22 April 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090017828


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 his general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states he is trying to reenter the Army.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation.

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 served in the Regular Army from 23 October 1985 through 
21 February 1990 when he was discharged for misconduct under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c, Army Regulation 635-200.

3.  The applicant's record contains a separation packet which shows:

* He was married and he committed adultery with a woman not his wife
* He was restricted to his barracks and broke restriction
* He visited his girlfriend and became involved in an altercation which led to assault and damage of property

4.  On 1 November 1989, the applicant's commander notified him of intent to discharge him for misconduct.  The applicant sought legal counsel and, on 9 January 1990, acknowledged notification, stating his rights had been explained to him.  He submitted a statement, but that statement is no longer available.  On an unknown date, the applicant's commander forwarded the request for discharge to the approving authority.  On 25 January 1990, the discharge was approved with the issuance of a GD.  The applicant was discharged on 
21 February 1990.

5.  There is no evidence the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a discharge upgrade.

6.  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, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.

7.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) 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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant wants an HD in order to rejoin the Army.

2.  The applicant was charged with adultery, breaking restriction, assault, and damage to private property.  His commander elected to administratively discharge him under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c, Army Regulation 
635-200.
3.  The applicant acknowledged notification and consulted with legal counsel who explained the basis for the separation action, its effects, and the rights available to him.  The applicant stated he understood his rights and submitted a statement on his own behalf for consideration by the approving authority.  

4.  The applicant’s discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's offenses and his overall record of military service.

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)                                         AR20090017828



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090017828



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070003383C071029

    Original file (20070003383C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The unit commander cited the applicant's larceny of Government property and adultery, by cohabitating with a woman not his wife, while still legally married as the basis for taking the action. Although an honorable discharge (HD) or GD may be issued by the separation authority if warranted by the member's overall record of service, an UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. At his request, an administrative separation board considered his case...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022463

    Original file (20120022463.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    "Service-connected disabilities" is not an Army reason for separation. His separation code and narrative reason for separation were assigned based on the discharge separation authority of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to: * correcting his DD Form 214 to show the narrative reason for his separation as "service-connected disability" instead of "misconduct - pattern of misconduct" * restoration...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100028670

    Original file (20100028670.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 20 May 2008, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge and ordered him discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct - commission of a serious offense with a general under honorable conditions discharge. On 30 May 2008, the applicant was accordingly discharged. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c of Army Regulation 635-200 with a character of service as under honorable...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013137

    Original file (20100013137.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant also acknowledged he understood that he would be ineligible to apply for enlistment in the U.S. Army for a period of 2 years after discharge. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 20 March 1992 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct, commission of a serious offense with a general discharge. This regulation also provides, in pertinent part, that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007597

    Original file (20120007597.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. On 19 December 1989, he was notified by his immediate commander of the commander's intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, for serious misconduct with a general discharge. On 3 January 1990, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013431

    Original file (20100013431.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests upgrade of his general discharge. On 30 October 1989, the applicant was advised by his unit commander that he was initiating action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c for misconduct - commission of serious offenses, with a general discharge. He understood that if he received a less than honorable discharge, he may apply to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or this Board for upgrading; however, he...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080015431

    Original file (20080015431.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 FEBRUARY 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080015431 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. During the investigation sworn statements were obtained from the applicant's wife and additional witnesses all attesting to the fact that the applicant assaulted his wife, destroyed property during the assault, and cut his own wrist. In a notarized statement, dated 21 August 2008, that was submitted in support of his application, the applicant's wife states that the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00874

    Original file (ND04-00874.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00874 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040503. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I believe all of my requests should be honored, especially the removal of an assault conviction from my record.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020969

    Original file (20110020969.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 13 December 1990 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14-12c, for misconduct - commission of a serious offense with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions. The evidence of record shows the applicant's commander recommended that the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 paragraph14-12c, for...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006843

    Original file (20090006843.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests upgrade of her general, under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from active duty. _________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.