Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011860
Original file (20100011860.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	 21 October 2010 

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100011860 


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.

2.  The applicant states he was discharged for excessive absence without leave (AWOL).  He states the reason for his absence was that his father required his assistance during an illness and he would like to have his character of service changed by clemency.

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty).

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 military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 June 1975.  He did not complete initial entry training and was not awarded a military occupational specialty.  The highest rank/grade he held was private/E-2.

3.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on 28 April 1976 for twice without authority failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.

4.  His records show he was charged with absenting himself from his unit without authority during the periods 28 May to 15 June 1976 and 16 June to 13 September 1976.

5.  On 16 September 1976, he voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service.  He acknowledged that he understood he could request discharge for the good of the service because charges had been preferred against him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He acknowledged he was making the request of his own free will and was not subjected to coercion with respect to his request for discharge and that he had been advised of the implications attached to his request.  He further acknowledged that by submitting his request for discharge, he was admitting to being guilty of a charge against him or of a lesser included offense therein contained which also authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  

6.  He consulted with counsel prior to completing his request for discharge and was advised of his rights.  He acknowledged he understood if his discharge request was approved, he might be discharged under conditions other than honorable and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He acknowledged that as a result of the issuance of such a discharge he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and that he might be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  He also acknowledged that he understood he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He chose not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

7.  On 22 September 1976, the applicant's unit commander recommended approval of his request for discharge.

8.  On 24 September 1976, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 
635-200, and directed he be given an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
9.  On 5 October 1976, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 he was issued at that time shows he completed a total of 1 year and 13 days of active military service with 105 days of lost time.

10. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service.  At the time of the applicant's separation, an Undesirable Discharge Certificate was normally furnished an individual who was discharged for the good of the service.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, 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 member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

13.  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 records show he accepted NJP for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty and he was charged with absenting himself from his unit without authority on two separate occasions.  He voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the charge or of a lesser included offense which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  This serious misconduct warranted a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant asks for clemency based on his contention he was AWOL because his father required his assistance during an illness.  The Army has policies and procedures to deal with hardships, including compassionate reassignments and hardship discharges.  Notwithstanding his attached letter chronicling his father's medical circumstances during the time he was AWOL, the applicant has not submitted any evidence to show he properly applied for a compassionate reassignment or a hardship discharge.  However, even if he did, it would not form the basis to upgrade his discharge.

3.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's 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)                                         AR20100011860



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100011860



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005737

    Original file (20080005737.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 2 March 1976, the applicant surrendered to military authorities at Fort Sill, where charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 7 January to 2 March 1976. There is no indication in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. The applicant’s contentions have been noted; however, he has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140021040

    Original file (20140021040 .txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that his service be characterized as under other than honorable conditions. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 9 December 1977 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, with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. The evidence of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010049

    Original file (20060010049.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    X The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. He also states that all he could think of was his dying father and that he went absent without leave (AWOL) to be with his father. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against them or of a lesser included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and they must indicate that...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100029292

    Original file (20100029292.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. 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 Veterans Administration benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge. The applicant has not submitted any evidence to show he properly requested assistance or provided an explanation as to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | AR20140010965

    Original file (AR20140010965 .txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he entered active duty this period on 22 April 1980 and he was discharged on 17 November 1983 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, with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Commander, U.S. Army Military Personnel Center, Alexandria, VA, message, date-time-group 081012Z September 1982, that shows...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070004047C071029

    Original file (20070004047C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge be upgraded to honorable. He is describes as often speaking of his training and the time he served in the Army with pride and honor – even though he was discharged under less than honorable circumstances. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by upgrading the applicant's under other than honorable conditions discharge to a general, under honorable...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007878

    Original file (20080007878.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Charges were preferred against the applicant on 30 May 1984 for being AWOL from 9 April 1981 to 19 May 1984. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against them or of a lesser included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and they must indicate that they have been briefed and understand the consequences of such a request as...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020540

    Original file (20100020540.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 31 March 1976, 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 because charges had been preferred against him under the UCMJ which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. He further acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request were approved, he might be discharged under conditions other than honorable and furnished...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020776

    Original file (20120020776.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests affirmation of his upgraded discharge by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 13 January 1976 under the Department of Defense (DOD) Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) so he can receive veterans' benefits. It further indicated that individuals who received an undesirable discharge during the Vietnam War era would have their discharges upgraded if they met one of the following criteria: wounded in combat in...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085219C070212

    Original file (2003085219C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. He stated that the applicant went AWOL because he was not getting along and did not like the training. The applicant has not presented and the records do not...