IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 5 October 2010
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100010474
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 discharge.
2. The applicant states he wants his discharge upgraded.
3. The applicant did not provide documents 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 Regular Army (RA) on 27 July 1979.
3. He received non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for the following offenses:
* 28 November 1979 failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty
* 29 April 1979 sleeping on duty
* 21 may 1980 disobeying a lawful order, missing bed check, and failing to go to his appointed place of duty
4. The applicant's records contain a Resume from 28 November 1979 19 May 1980 listing the following as his conduct, attitude, performance, and discreditable acts:
* dereliction of duty
* sleeping on fireguard
* disobeying a lawful order
* failing barracks inspection
* failing in-ranks inspection
* attempting to deceive cadre
5. On 29 May 1980, the applicant was notified by his unit commander that separation action was being initiated against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), for misconduct based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature.
6. On 4 June 1980, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed action against him and consulted with legal counsel. He was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, the effects of such a separation, the rights available to him, and the effect of any action taken by him in waiving his rights. Subsequent to receiving this counseling, the applicant completed his election of rights by waiving his right to have his case considered by an administrative separation board and he declined to submit statements in his own behalf.
7. On 11 June 1980, the appropriate separation authority approved the discharge and directed that the applicant receive an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.
8. On 12 June 1980, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33b(1), by reason of a pattern of misconduct - frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) also shows the applicant was discharged in the rank/grade of PV1/E-1 and that he completed a total of 9 months and 13 days of total creditable active service with 34 days of time lost.
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 statute of limitations.
10. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 established policy and prescribed procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities. Action would be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impracticable or was unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldiers overall record. Only a general court-martial convening authority may approve an honorable discharge or delegate approval authority for an honorable discharge under this provision of regulation.
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 Soldiers separation specifically allows such characterization.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was discharged with an under other than honorable conditions discharge for a pattern of misconduct - frequent incidents of discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. Records also show he had 34 days of lost time. Based on this record of indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. Therefore, he is not entitled to a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge.
2. In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
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) AR20100010474
4
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120013667
On 13 May 1980, his immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, for misconduct - frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33b, by reason of misconduct - frequent involvement in incidents...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021692
The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of misconduct - frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and/or military authorities, with service characterized as under other than honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. His repeated misconduct and failure to respond...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008204
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant completed his election of rights by requesting consideration of his case by and personal appearance before an administrative separation board. It also shows that he completed a total of 1 year, 7 months, and 23 days of creditable active military service and that he held the rank of private/E-1 at the time of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110015320
On 19 December 1979, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action on him under the provisions of paragraph 14-33, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), for misconduct frequent incidents. On 28 January 1980, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the board of officers in the applicant's case, and directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of paragraph 14-33b(1), Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004042C070205
He was sentenced to perform 45 days of extra duty, to be restricted for 45 days, and to forfeit $311 pay per month for 1 month. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Evidence of record shows the applicant had three nonjudicial punishments, one summary court-martial conviction, and one special court-martial conviction prior to being sent to the Retraining Brigade.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020834
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 13 November 1979, the unit commander initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-33b, due to frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable or a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015205
On 19 November 1980, the unit commander initiated action to separate the applicant for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-33b, due to frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Since his record of service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019023
The applicant requests his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge. On 3 August 1981, the applicant's company commander requested that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Separations), paragraph 14-33, for misconduct due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010104
On 24 August 1981, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) for misconduct - frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. On 1 September 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of misconduct and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001486
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 18 August 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110001486 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 14 April 1981, the applicant's unit commander recommended his separation from the service under the provisions of paragraph 14-33b of Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities and an established pattern for shirking. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge...