IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 9 November 2010
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100013951
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 an honorable discharge.
2. The applicant states he served honorably except for a period of absence without leave (AWOL). He was young and being discriminated against because of his race. However, no one ever complained about his work. He went AWOL because he was young and he no longer wanted to be exposed to the Army life.
3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge).
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 was inducted into the Army of the United States on 9 December 1970 at the age of 21. He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 71H (Personnel Specialist).
3. Upon completion of training he was assigned to Headquarters, U. S. Forces Support District, Hessen, Germany with further assignment to the 39th Finance Section, Hanau, Germany. At different times he is shown to be serving in either MOS 71H or 73C (Finance Specialist).
4. On 3 June 1972, the applicant departed AWOL and he was subsequently dropped from the rolls (DFR) of his unit. He remained in a DFR status until 12 March 1973.
5. The applicant's separation packet is not contained in the available records.
6. There is no evidence of record and the applicant did not provide any evidence that shows he raised any discrimination issues through his chain of command, that he filed a discrimination complaint through his unit's equal opportunity representative, or that he raised any discrimination issue through other community support agencies.
7. The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant indicates he was separated on temporary records under conditions other than honorable with issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The authority for discharge is listed as Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph
10-1, with separation program number (SPN) 246 which indicated he was discharged for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. The DD Form 214 also shows he completed 1 year, 9 months, and 3 days of total active service with time lost from 3 June 1972 to 12 March 1973.
8. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. It provides:
a. in chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time 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 Veterans Administration 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.
b. in paragraph 3-7a, 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 members 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;
c. in paragraph 3-7b, 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; and
9. The Manual for Courts-Martial, Table of Maximum Punishments, sets forth the maximum punishments for offenses chargeable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). A punitive discharge is authorized for offenses under Article 86, UCMJ, for periods of AWOL in excess of 30 days.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The only negative item in the applicant's available record is his long period of AWOL; however, there is also no significant indication of service so meritorious as to mitigate his extended period of AWOL. The applicant has not provided and the record does not contain any indication of discrimination or that his race had any bearing on determining his duty assignments or in the characterization of his discharge.
2. Although the discharge documentation is not of record, the evidence of record shows that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. In connection with such a discharge, the applicant would have had to have been charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. Procedurally, the applicant would be required to consult with defense counsel and to voluntarily, and in writing, request separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. Included in the Chapter 10
requirements at that time was a requirement that the applicant admitted guilt to the stipulated offenses under the UCMJ or lesser-included charges. In the absence of information to the contrary, is it presumed that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.
3. As such, the applicant's characterization of his discharge is commensurate with the offense for which he requested discharge and is appropriate for his overall record of military service.
4. 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) AR20100013951
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100013951
4
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011124
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 1 March 1972, he 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 DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 - for the good of the service in lieu of trial...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008677
The applicant's records show he was born on 21 March 1955 and he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years at 17 years and 9 months of age on 8 December 1972. The available evidence shows the applicant was 17 years and 9 months of age at the time of his enlistment and 19 years of age at the time of his offense. Additionally, there is no evidence in the available records and he did not provide any evidence that shows his acts of misconduct were the result of his age.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013360
On 10 December 1964, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, due to unfitness, with an undesirable discharge. 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. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100024897
The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge. The evidence shows that the applicant was AWOL and he was confined on several occasions for a combined total of 450 days. _________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 | CY2012 | 20120002832
The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021999
The applicant served on active duty in the Regular Army from 5 June 1972 through 7 September 1973. 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. A punitive discharge is authorized for AWOL offenses in excess of 30 days.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021481
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states, in effect, the presumption of regularity that may normally permit the Board to assume the Army acted properly in characterizing his service does not apply for the following reasons: a. he feels it is an injustice for him to continue suffering the adverse consequences of a bad discharge; b. he believes under current Army standards he would not have received the same discharge; c. he had average conduct and efficiency...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004686
Article 90, on or about 6 January 1967, by lifting a weapon, a broken broom stick, against a Lieutenant Colonel C----y, a superior commissioned officer in the execution of his duties; c. Article 92, on or about 23 December 1966, by failing to obey a lawful order issued by a specialist four, who was then performing duties as a guard at the Fort Carson Post Stockade; and d. Article 85, on or about 28 December 1965, by being AWOL from his basic combat training unit with the intent to remain...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008152
The applicant requests his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general under honorable conditions discharge. COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE: The Disabled American Veterans (DAV), as counsel for the applicant, states the following: * Race played a factor in the military in 1975 * The applicants mother was sick and could not take care of herself or provide for herself * The applicants conduct during his subsequent discharge was exemplary * The applicant is now a changed man...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007615
The applicant states he was previously issued a clemency discharge in recognition of satisfactory completion of alternative service pursuant to Presidential Proclamation (PP) Number (No) 4313. However, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 24 January 1975, under the provisions of PP No 4313, with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions and issued a UD Discharge Certificate. This document confirms the applicant was discharged under the provisions of PP No 4313,...