Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018243
Original file (20090018243.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  20 May 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090018243 


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 upgrade of his discharge.

2.  The applicant states he was stationed at Fort Bragg, NC, waiting for his orders that had been lost to arrive.  He states no one informed him that his wife was having problems with her pregnancy and had to be rushed to the hospital where she lost the baby.  He further states his mother had leukemia and when he requested leave to see her it was denied.  He informed his command he was going anyway and when he returned from his unauthorized leave and turned himself in, he was discharged.  He concludes by stating he is asking for an upgrade to be eligible for a loan to buy a house.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement and a statement from his sister in support of this 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 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 January 1977.  He was discharged on 22 March 1979 and immediately reenlisted on 23 March 1979.

3.  The applicant's DA Forms 4187 (Personal Action), dated 26 March 1980, 25 April 1980, and 17 June 1980 show the following:

* 24 March 1980, duty status changed from present for duty to absent without leave (AWOL)
* 25 April 1980, duty status changed from AWOL to dropped from rolls
* 17 June 1980, applicant surrendered to military authorities

4.  On 28 May 1980, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the possible effects of an undesirable discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  Subsequent to receiving legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

5.  In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated he understood that by requesting a 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 or dishonorable discharge.  He further acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request were 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 (VA), and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.

6.  On 1 July 1980, the separation authority directed the applicant be separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  On 14 July 1980, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  He completed a total of 3 years, 2 months, and 17 days of creditable active service with 62 days of lost time.

7.  On 1 March 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition for an upgrade of his discharge.

8.  The statement of circumstances provided by the applicant's sister on his behalf attests to the illness of their mother.

9.  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 VA 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 to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service.

10.  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.

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 Soldier's separation specifically allows such characterization.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service to avoid a trial by court-martial.  He acknowledged he understood that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

2.  The applicant's contention that his mother and wife were ill is noted; however, it does not serve as a basis to warrant upgrading the character of his service.

3.  The applicant's record of indiscipline includes 62 days of AWOL.  Based on this record of indiscipline, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  His misconduct also renders his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, he is not entitled to a general under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge.

4.  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)                                         AR20090018243



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013204

    Original file (20100013204.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In his voluntary request for discharge, the applicant indicated he understood by requesting discharge that the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge was authorized. On 5 April 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed the issuance of a DD Form 794A (Other than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate). The evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for an upgrade of his UOTHC discharge to a GD.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013087

    Original file (20130013087.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge 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. The applicant's record contains no evidence showing that he received a hardship discharge or that he was told his discharge would be automatically upgraded after six months to an honorable discharge. Based on his record of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080015869

    Original file (20080015869.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 31 January 1974, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010103

    Original file (20090010103.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to general. On 7 May 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021743

    Original file (20120021743.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states he was 17 years old when he enlisted and he was having problems at home. Following consultation with legal counsel, he requested discharge 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. The evidence of record shows he went AWOL on four separate occasions and at the time of his discharge he stated he had a poor attitude toward the Army, he could...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021689

    Original file (20090021689.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge. On 2 July 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant's request and directed that he be separated 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 undesirable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018668

    Original file (20100018668.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to a general discharge. The applicant's request that his discharge be upgraded to general under honorable conditions was carefully considered and it was determined that there is insufficient evidence to support his request. ___________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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002963

    Original file (20150002963.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, an undesirable discharge is normally considered appropriate. The applicant has provided no evidence to support his request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012702

    Original file (20100012702.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge. 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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016662

    Original file (20140016662.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 25 July 1980, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service 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. He acknowledged he understood he could request discharge for the good of the service because court-martial charges had been preferred against him under the UCMJ that authorized the imposition of a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge. He...