Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009665
Original file (20100009665.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  10 August 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100009665 


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 undesirable discharge to a general discharge.

2.  The applicant states he went absent without leave (AWOL) to handle a family emergency.  He further states he has suffered for many years regarding the choice he made.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) and a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

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's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 February 1973.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 13B (Field Artillery Crewman).  The highest rank/grade he attained while serving on active duty was private first class (PFC)/E-3.

3.  Records show the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on 12 March 1973 for possession of marijuana and on 19 March 1974 for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.  Records also show the applicant went AWOL on 4 June 1974 and he was returned to military control on 15 August 1974.

4.  On 7 May 1975, charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL during the period 16 September 1974 through 3 May 1975.

5.  On 14 May 1975, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and he was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  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.

6.  In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge 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 was approved, 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 law.

7.  On 13 June 1975, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed his reduction to private (PV1)/E-1 and issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  On 18 June 1975, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he completed a total of 1 year, 6 months, and 8 days of creditable active service with 301 days of time lost due to AWOL.

8.  There is no evidence in the available records to indicate he requested emergency leave to handle family matters.
9.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue of limitations.

10.  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 an individual who was discharged for the good of the Service.

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's contention that his discharge should be upgraded was carefully considered and it was determined that there is insufficient evidence to support this request.  

2.  The applicant contends he left the military to handle a family emergency.  There is no evidence in the available records and he did not provide any evidence to support this argument.  Absent such evidence, there is no basis to grant the relief requested.

3.  The applicant's record shows he was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.  Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Therefore, it is presumed in this case that the applicant voluntarily requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.

4.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, the applicant's discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.

5.  The applicant's record of service shows that he received NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, on two occasions; he was AWOL on a third occasion; and he went AWOL again, which was the basis for his voluntary discharge.  Based on his record of indiscipline, this misconduct also renders his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to a general discharge.

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)                                         AR20100009665



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100009665



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007295

    Original file (20120007295.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant consulted with legal counsel and he 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 request for discharge states he was not subjected to coercion with respect to his request for discharge. His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he was discharged on 29 October 1975 in accordance with...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017039

    Original file (20140017039.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD) to a general discharge (GD). On 11 July 1975, he was charged with being AWOL and was pending a court-martial for being AWOL for a total of 203 days.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002116

    Original file (20120002116.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel and without coercion, he 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. His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial on 22 October 1975 in the rank/grade of private/E-1 with a UD. On 28 February...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003758

    Original file (20140003758.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, at the time an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate. It was not the first time he was AWOL. _______ _ __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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003758

    Original file (20140003758 .txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, at the time an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate. It was not the first time he was AWOL. _______ _ __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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110002665

    Original file (20110002665.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. However, at the time the applicant was discharged an undesirable discharge was appropriate. The honorable characterization of service 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 of service would be clearly inappropriate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024882

    Original file (20110024882.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable or a general discharge. Following consultation with legal counsel, the applicant 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. On 21 January 1975, the separation authority approved his request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008418

    Original file (20090008418.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 16 December 1975, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service and directed that a UD Certificate be issued and that the applicant be reduced to pay grade E-1. The applicant was discharged on 6 January 1976 in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with his service characterized as...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012079

    Original file (20140012079.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 7 July 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. Chapter 10 states 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. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate at the time of the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019498

    Original file (20130019498.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 13 May 1975, he consulted with legal counsel and 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 due to charges being preferred against him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of...