IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 22 July 2010
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100001127
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, in effect, correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) by upgrading his character of service from "under other than honorable conditions" to "honorable."
2. The applicant states, in effect, he needs his discharge upgraded to be eligible for medical benefits for injuries incurred while he was in the Army.
3. The applicant does not provide any 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 enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG) of the United States on 11 March 1991 for a period of 8 years. A copy of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record Part II) shows in item 35 (Record of Assignments) that he reported for basic combat training (BCT) at Fort Jackson, South Carolina on 2 April 1991. The next entry shows him in an absent without leave (AWOL) status on 5 May 1991, then confined by civil authorities on 16 May 1991 for destruction of private property. It appears that on 2 June 1991 he reentered BCT and completed training. This form also shows that he reported to Fort Gordon, Georgia on 8 July 1991 to attend advanced individual training (AIT) for military occupational specialty (MOS) 31K (Signal Specialist). There is no evidence to show that he was awarded this MOS.
3. The facts and the circumstances surrounding the applicant's discharge are not contained in the available records, However, the applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was voluntarily discharged on 19 December 1991, 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 had completed 6 months and 17 days of net active service and 15 days of prior inactive service. He had a total of 68 days of lost time due to being AWOL and in civil confinement.
4. There is no available evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to upgrade his discharge.
5. 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.
6. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, 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, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's request to upgrade his character of service from "under other than honorable conditions" to "honorable" was carefully considered.
2. The evidence shows the applicant was voluntarily discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
3. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant's separation was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. Without having the discharge packet to consider, it is presumed that 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) AR20100001127
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100001127
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022353
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. This form shows charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) were preferred against him for going AWOL from 21 July to 16 November 1972. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial, with an Under Other than Honorable Conditions Discharge on 14 December 1972.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007388
There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. Records show that he was almost 18 years of age at the time of his offenses.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010417
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 25 November 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for the above periods of AWOL. There is no record the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a discharge upgrade during that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080002150
Director Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: M Chairperson M Member M Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. He further adds that his service records should reveal that he was discharged with an undesirable discharge, under medical conditions; not a dishonorable discharge [sic]. On 1 March 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he receive an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021641
The applicant states, in effect, he was having family problems and the Army discharged him 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. In his request for discharge, he acknowledged he understood if the discharge request was approved he might be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 25 October...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018271
He was advised that he might * be deprived of many or all Army benefits * be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration * be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws c. He acknowledged he understood that, if his request for discharge was accepted, he might be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020458
The applicant states: a. On 18 June 1981, the applicant was discharged accordingly. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140004002
Title 38, CFR, section 3.12 (Character of discharge) states in: a. Paragraph (c)(6) that benefits are not payable where the former service member was discharged or released by reason of a discharge under other than honorable conditions issued as a result of an absence without official leave (AWOL) for a continuous period of at least 180 days. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate at the time. b. Paragraph 3-7b...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027986
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 June 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100027986 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. 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. The applicant requests an Honorable Discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014130
He also acknowledged he understood that if the discharge request was approved, he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate and that as a result he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, 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. The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time shows...