Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013051
Original file (20100013051.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  26 October 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100013051 


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 his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states he was punished too severely for disobeying an order by his first sergeant which violated the applicant's P3 (permanent) profile.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement, copies of three Standard Forms 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care), and a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge 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 record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on                  29 December 1978.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).  The highest rank/grade he attained while serving on active duty was private/E-2.

3.  His record contains a DA Form 3349 (Medical Condition - Physical Profile Record) dated 25 September 1980, wherein it was determined he was medically qualified for duty with limitations.  Section B (Physical Profile) indicates he received a P3 for "U" (upper body).  Section C (Assignment Restrictions, or Geographical, or Climatic Area Limitations) indicates "code G, no lifting over 15 pounds with left arm, no push-ups, no pull-ups."

4.  On 7 November 1980, he signed a statement indicating he understood the permanent physical profile limited his performance and he felt he could not perform the duties required of his MOS.  His commander also signed the form stating he determined the applicant could not perform the duties of his MOS.

5.  His record reveals he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for the following:

* On 23 March 1979, wrongly engaging in a fight and unlawfully striking a Soldier with an Army bunk bed 
* On 15 January 1981, unlawfully striking a Soldier with his fist and disobeying a lawful order of a staff sergeant 

6.  The specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not available for review with this case.  However, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 20 March 1981 in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) chapter 10, for conduct triable by court-martial in pay grade E-1 with an under other than honorable conditions character of service.  He completed a total of 2 years, 2 months, and 22 days of creditable active service with no lost time.

7.  There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

8.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement, dated 17 January 2002, wherein he states the following:

* While on active duty he received a P3 profile which stated no handling of weapons, no field duty, and no lifting over 25 pounds
* His first sergeant gave him an order that would break his profile so he did not obey the order
* He was told he would be court-martialed for disobeying the first sergeant or he could take a chapter 10 discharge which would be upgraded in a couple of years

9.  He also provides copies of three Standard Forms 600, dated 25 August 1980 and 25 September 1980, indicating he was treated for injuries received in an automobile accident, and a copy of his DD Form 214.

10.  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.

11.  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 or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

12.  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 his under other than honorable conditions discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge was carefully considered.

2.  The applicant contends he was punished too severely for disobeying his first sergeant; however, his available record does not support this contention.

3.  His record of service shows he received NJP on two occasions for unlawfully striking a Soldier and on one occasion for disobeying a lawful order of a staff sergeant. 

4.  His 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.  

5.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary it is presumed his separation processing was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reason for separation therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  Based on his overall record, the applicant's service does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to a general or an honorable 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.



      _______ _   _______   ___
               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)                                         AR20100013051





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100013051



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014596

    Original file (20140014596.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 Enlisted Personnel ) for misconduct. On 27 March 1980, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, by reason of misconduct and directed the issuance of an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. There is no...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004592

    Original file (20120004592.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 7 October 1970, the applicant's unit commander recommended that he be required to appear before a board of officers to consider his separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. There were no medical records available to the Board and the applicant provided no medical records. Additionally, as stated in Army Regulation 635-212, when separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014427

    Original file (20130014427.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant pled not guilty to the charges and was found guilty of all Specifications of Charge 1 and not guilty of both Specifications of Charge II. The remaining findings of guilty and the approved sentence to a bad conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for 4 months, and a forfeiture of $250 pay for 4 months as adjudged on 16 February 1983 were affirmed. Therefore, clemency in the form of an honorable or general discharge is not warranted in this case.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013504

    Original file (20100013504.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 25 October 1979, he was notified by his commander that discharge action was being initiated against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, for acts of misconduct. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. There is no evidence that indicates he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008480

    Original file (20140008480.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In his request for discharge, he acknowledged he understood if the discharge request were approved, he might be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. There is no evidence he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070008328

    Original file (20070008328.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 4 October 2005, a PEB convened at Fort Lewis, Washington, and found the applicant's medical condition of chronic radiating low back pain prevented him from performing his duties. On 12 April 2006, the applicant was issued a third permanent physical profile (P2) for low back pain by the Physical Medicine Clinic, William Beaumont Army Medical Center, Fort Bliss, Texas. Only after the Physical Disability Agency recommended a 10 percent disability, did the applicant pursue a new and less...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021193

    Original file (20130021193.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Accordingly, he was discharged on 30 May 1973. On 7 August 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board, after careful consideration of his military records and all other available evidence determined he was properly discharged and denied his request for an upgrade. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate at the time.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110005464

    Original file (20110005464.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, an undesirable discharge was considered appropriate at the time. His character of service is appropriate based on the facts of the case and his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021716

    Original file (20120021716.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, extension on active duty for physical disability processing which may have resulted in a medical retirement. His profile dated 8 June 2011 shows no limitations with no recommendation for an MEB. As justification for his request, he stated the following: * In June 2009, he was a mental health patient for a number of months for psychological problems to include being diagnosed as bipolar * On 6 July 2009, he was hospitalized in a mental health ward after a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019023

    Original file (20100019023.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...