IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 13 May 2010
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090019247
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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to a general under honorable conditions discharge.
2. The applicant does not provide any statement.
3. The applicant does not provide any additional documents.
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 applicants military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 March 1987 and was awarded military occupational specialty 41C (fire control instrument repairer).
3. On 22 January 1988, the applicant departed absent without leave (AWOL).
4. On 24 January 1988, while in an AWOL status, he was arrested by civil authorities for burglary for stealing three car radios, four tires, and one pair of
T-tops.
5. On 26 September 1988, the applicant's commander notified him of his intent to recommend his discharge for misconduct and of his rights in conjunction with that recommendation. The applicant waived his rights.
6. The applicant's commander then forwarded his recommendation to discharge the applicant. That recommendation was approved by the proper authority and, on 8 November 1988, the applicant was given a UOTHC discharge.
7. There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade to his UOTHC discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
8. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) 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. Paragraph 1-18 of that regulation specifies that Soldiers being considered for separation under the provisions of chapters 13, 14, and 15 are entitled to have a board of officers consider their cases unless that right is waived. When discharge is approved under this chapter, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate
9. 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 was convicted of burglary while he was in an AWOL status. Such serious misconduct certainly warranted a UOTHC discharge.
2. The evidence shows that the applicant's rights were protected throughout the discharge process.
3. The applicant has not provided any argument which would suggest an error or injustice in the discharge proceedings and none are noted.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicants requested relief.
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) AR20090019247
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090019247
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000125
A DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 1 August 1989, shows the applicant's status was changed from DFR to confined by civilian authorities, effective 2 July 1989. On 30 August 1989, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. On 19 September 1989, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he receive an UOTHC discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110015937
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded. The record shows the applicant accepted three NJPs; was convicted by a special court-martial; and was twice convicted in a civilian court.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018560
On 3 November 1988, the applicant's commander notified him that action was being initiated to separate him from the Regular Army due to commission of a serious offense based on his civilian conviction and subsequent sentence for possession of burglary tools and larceny on 11 October 1988. The commander advised the applicant of his right to be represented by counsel, to request a hearing before an administrative separation board or to submit written statements in his own behalf, to waive any...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008804
The applicant requests his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions. The applicant did not report for his IET, was carried as AWOL, was dropped from the rolls of the Army as a deserter, was returned to military control after he was apprehended by civil authorities, and was pending civil charges for burglary. Based on the seriousness of the applicant's offense and his failure to provide any reason for his absence,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017253
On 23 July 1980, the applicant's company commander notified him that he was recommending action be taken to separate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel SeparationsEnlisted Separation), paragraph 14-12a, for reasons of conviction by civil court. On 30 July 1980, the applicant stated that he did not intend to appeal his civil conviction. On 1 August 1980, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge from the Army under the provisions...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004496
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Section VI (Conviction by Civil Court) of Army Regulation 635-206, then in effect, states, in pertinent part, that an individual will be considered for discharge when he has been initially convicted by civil authorities, or action has been taken against him which is tantamount to a finding of guilty, of an offense for which the maximum penalty under the UCMJ is death or confinement in excess of 1 year. Army Regulation 635-206 also...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003119
There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The applicant was 17 years of age at the time of his enlistment in the CAARNG.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019662
On or about 21 September 1988, the applicant consulted with counsel concerning his rights and requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board and to appear before such board. A UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. The applicant's record of good service was greatly diminished by his commission of these serious offenses.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012918
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, it states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The evidence of record shows the applicant tested positive for cocaine and was punishment under Article 15, UCMJ for this offense, and for being AWOL for 7 days. After review of the evidence of this case, it is determined that the applicant has not presented sufficient evidence which warrants changing his UOTHC discharge to a general under honorable conditions discharge or to an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002911
The applicant states his performance of duty was not unsatisfactory. On 8 June 1993, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. Based on his record of NJPs, civilian arrests, and numerous counselings for unsatisfactory performance, the applicant's service clearly does not meet the acceptable standards for Army personnel.