Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008335
Original file (20100008335.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  26 August 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100008335


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 to know his status.  In effect, he is requesting a discharge upgrade.

2.  The applicant states:

* he is a Vietnam era veteran
* soon after the war, all those who received discharges under other than honorable conditions had their discharges converted to honorable
* he adds that it has taken him over 30 years to let go of what he experienced and what was done to him
* he was drafted and he did not believe in the war

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 record shows the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States for 2 years on 14 March 1967.  His Federal Bureau of Investigation Identification Record shows nine entries prior to 14 March 1967 and four entries after that date through 26 March 1968.

3.  The record shows that upon his induction, the applicant was an immediate disciplinary problem.  In addition to multiple periods of lost time due to absence without leave (AWOL) and confinement, the applicant had four special court-martial convictions, two records of nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and a civilian criminal conviction for burglary in the second degree in Ventura County, CA, on or about 22 May 1969.

4.  On 8 July 1969, the applicant's chain of command initiated separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations – Discharge - Misconduct) for a civil court conviction.  The separation action was approved on 4 September 1969 and the approving authority directed issuance of an undesirable discharge (UD).

5.  On 21 October 1969, the applicant was discharged with a UD.  His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States) shows he had 1 year, 1 month, and 20 days of creditable service with 539 days of lost time due to AWOL, military confinement, and/or civil confinement.

6.  Army Regulation 635-206, then in effect, provided that an enlisted member who was convicted by a civilian court of an offense for which the authorized punishment under the UCMJ included confinement of 1 year or more was to be considered for elimination.  The requirement for a board of officers could be waived by the separation authority provided the individual concerned was physically in civil custody at the time.  When such separation was warranted, a UD was considered appropriate.

7.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) provides guidance on characterization of service.

	a.  Paragraph 3-7a states 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.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7b states 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 requests, in effect, a discharge upgrade.  He wants to know the status of his upgrade.

2.  The applicant's status is that he has a UD and there was never any action to upgrade his character of service.  The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges and is specifically prohibited from establishing factors which would require automatic change or denial of a change in discharge.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the character of service or the reasons for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.

3.  In the applicant's case, his record appropriately justifies the reason for and characterization of his UD.

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)                                         AR20100008335



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100008335



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018038

    Original file (20130018038.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD) to an honorable discharge. On 10 December 1968, the applicant's company commander recommended the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Misconduct). There is no evidence he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations for an upgrade of his discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120012657

    Original file (20120012657.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He further requests a personal appearance before the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to provide additional testimony as evidence. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) provides Department of the Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions regarding an applicant's request for the correction of a military record. He was discharged accordingly on 27 March 1970.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027876

    Original file (20100027876.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD) to a general discharge (GD). In so doing I was AWOL for a period of 14 months.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009611

    Original file (20120009611.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states that after returning home from his service in the Republic of Vietnam he had a hard time coping with stateside duty and the way civilians seemed to hate the Soldiers who served in Vietnam. The civilian court sentenced him to be placed on 5 years probation. The applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, by reason of a civil conviction.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015070

    Original file (20090015070.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 6 April 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090015070 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 16 December 1968, the applicant was declared AWOL when he failed to return from a period of reenlistment leave. Paragraph 1-13a stated that an honorable discharge was a separation with honor.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000664C070205

    Original file (20060000664C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was discharged on 24 March 1971, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to his civil court conviction. On 15 November 1973, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge. Paragraph 33 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members convicted by civil authorities would be considered for separation.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001681

    Original file (20090001681.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 14 May 1971, the applicant's intermediate commander recommended approval of the applicant's discharge, with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, and remarked that the applicant's sentence to confinement for not less than 25 years warranted his discharge from the Army. Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for misconduct. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012117

    Original file (20080012117.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Item 22 (Appointments and Reductions) shows that he was promoted to the rank of specialist four (SP4) on 7 January 1969, and that this was the highest rank he held while serving on active duty. On 16 April 1971, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant upon his discharge shows he was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, and that he was issued an UD discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021803

    Original file (20120021803.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 18 February 1969, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to civil conviction, and directed that the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The applicant's medical records were not available for review and there are no documents contained in his military personnel record which would indicate the applicant suffered from PTSD or any other mental health condition during his period of service....

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002063

    Original file (20120002063.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for misconduct (fraudulent entry, conviction by civil court, and absence without leave or desertion). The applicant was discharged by reason of civil conviction under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206.