IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 21 December 2010
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100015839
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 an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to a general or an honorable discharge.
2. He states the conditions surrounding the incident were a one-time occurrence in which alcohol played a role and caused a physical confrontation with another individual resulting in damage to the other individual's vehicle. He had never been in trouble before or since and he is currently an upstanding member of his community. He was young and did not realize what taking this discharge meant for him then or now. He should not have taken the first discharge offered to him and pursued at least a general discharge. His time in the service was served proudly and honorably and that was scarred by that regretful situation.
3. He provides no additional evidence.
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's military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on
29 November 1990, for 6 years. He completed training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 68N (Avionic Mechanic). He served in Hawaii from 17 October 1991 through 17 April 1994. He was advanced to pay grade
E-4 on 29 January 1993.
3. The specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not present in the available records. However, his record contains an authenticated DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) which shows he was discharged in pay grade E-1 on 19 April 1994, 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 service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions. He was credited with 3 years, 4 months, and 21 days of net active service this period with no time lost.
4. There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
5. Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of that regulation specified a member who had 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 in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request could be submitted at any time after charges had been preferred and must have included the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate.
6. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, specified an honorable discharge was separation with honor. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.
7. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, specified a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A characterization of under honorable conditions could only be issued only when the reason for the Soldiers separation specifically allowed such characterization.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge. He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.
2. He has provided no evidence or a convincing argument to show his discharge should be upgraded and he also has not provided evidence sufficient to mitigate the character of his discharge. His military records contain no evidence which would entitle him to an upgrade of his discharge. It appears his misconduct diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a general or an honorable discharge.
3. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge. It appears that he was charged with the commission of offense(s) punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (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. The applicant is presumed to have voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, he admitted guilt and waived his opportunity to appear before a court-martial. It is also presumed that all requirements of law and regulation were met, and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, the applicants discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.
4. Without evidence, it appears his administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. Therefore, he was properly discharged in accordance with pertinent regulations with due process.
5. 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) AR20100015839
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100015839
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010714
The applicant requests his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Individuals could have their discharges upgraded if they met any one of the following criteria: wounded in action; received a military decoration other than a service medal; successfully completed an assignment in Southeast Asia; completed alternate...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110022148
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to fully honorable under Secretarial Authority with a reentry code of 1 and to be awarded the Humanitarian Service Medal (HSM) for his participation in Operation Provide Refuge. The applicant states that his discharge should be upgraded because there were mitigating circumstances at the time, because he had an excellent record of service, and because the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) recognized that his discharge was unjust and...
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060008552
The applicant's chain of command recommended disapproval of the request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 26 July 2005, the separation authority approved the discharge and directed that the applicant be separated from the Army with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Yes No Counsel: No Witnesses/Observers: No Exhibits Submitted: The applicant submitted nine additional documents in support of his personal...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016149
The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-4 on 20 June 1979, with prior enlisted service in the U.S. Army Reserve. This DD Form 214 shows the applicant was discharged on 21 June 1984, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Separations), for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. There is no evidence the applicant applied to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100015571
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. However, his records contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 which shows he was discharged in pay grade E-1 on 23 September 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. There is no evidence he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003083
However, his record contains a DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 20 January 1975 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 a character of service of under conditions other than honorable and issuance of a DD Form 258A (Undesirable Discharge Certificate). However, there is no evidence in his service records and he has not provided evidence that shows...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007539
The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provided a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. He has provided no evidence or a convincing argument to show his discharge should be upgraded and his military records contain no evidence which would entitle him to an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010851
The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to an honorable or at least a general discharge. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. __________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 | CY2013 | 20130008202
The applicant requests correction of item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show something other than "in lieu of trial by court-martial." On 14 July 2004, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for a discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial and directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. His narrative reason for discharge was assigned based on the fact that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015697
The DD Form 214 identifies the authority and reason for the applicant's discharge, which shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial, and that he received an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The evidence of record confirms the ADRB determined the applicant's UOTHC discharge was...