IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 11 May 2010
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090018842
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 undesirable discharge be upgraded.
2. The applicant states:
* his discharge was unfair
* he told a colonel he did not want to be discharged
* he wanted to stay in the Army
* he did not want a bad discharge
* he was a young kid with many family problems
* he just needed someone to help him
3. The applicant provides no documentary evidence 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 military records are not available to the Board.
3. The Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) proceedings indicate the applicant was inducted on 16 April 1954. The ADRB proceedings state morning reports indicate the applicant was absent without leave at least once, he received one summary court-martial conviction and one special court-martial conviction, and he spent time in confinement.
4. The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicants discharge are not contained in the available records.
5. There is no DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) in the available records. His records do contain a Certification of Military Service which shows he was discharged on 20 January 1955 with an undesirable discharge.
6. On 21 June 1982, the ADRB denied the applicant's request for a discharge upgrade. These proceedings point out:
* the applicant was 17 years old when he was inducted
* the discharge authority, regulation at separation, narrative reason, and facts and circumstances were not found in the record
* the applicant was at Fort Leonard Wood, MO
* the amount of training he completed cannot be determined
* the sparse records do not permit determination of creditable service
* the applicant did not have 6 months of creditable service.
7. Army Regulation 635-200 governs the separation of enlisted personnel. 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 members 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.
8. 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:
The applicant's contentions were noted. However, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicants separation was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. Without having the discharge packet to consider, it is presumed his characterization of service was commensurate with his overall record of service. As a result, 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) AR20090018842
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090018842
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021491
On 6 November 1970, the applicant's immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability) by reason of unfitness. Consistent with the chain of command's recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unfitness and directed he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate and be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002728
The commander stated that the applicant had one NJP, three periods of AWOL, two special court-martial convictions and more than 250 days of lost time. There is no evidence the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 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 | 20120011015
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. After consulting with defense counsel, the applicant submitted a request for 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002893
He completed 1 year, 8 months, and 2 days of active military service. On 11 February 1975 and 19 October 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018510
On 2 June 1971, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for 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 was 19 years old when he was inducted and he completed his training. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002296C070206
On 7 August 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request for an honorable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. As a result, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice to this Board expired on 6 August 1984.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008083
On 6 February 1970, the unit commander recommended discharge of the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 by reason of civil conviction. On 28 December 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), after careful consideration of the applicant's case, denied his request for an upgrade of his UD. Further, the applicant's discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service for the charges he was convicted of and does not support an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110002854
On 15 May 1963, the applicant was discharged accordingly. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), currently in effect, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110002854 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110002854 2 ARMY...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015369
The applicant states: * he believes his type of discharge should have been general instead of under other than honorable conditions * his discharge should have been under President Ford's Clemency Discharge Program, which should have allowed him to have a neutral discharge * the Clemency Discharge Program was intended by President Ford to be a neutral discharge, not to be under honorable conditions nor under other than honorable conditions * he was under the impression his discharge was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007641
He states he had 37 1/2 years of addiction to drugs and alcohol. However, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 10 April 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations - Discharge -Misconduct (Fraudulent Entry, Conviction by Civil Court, AWOL, Desertion)), section IV, by reason of conviction by a civil court with an undesirable discharge. ___________x___________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings...