Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017895
Original file (20100017895.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  11 January 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100017895 


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 that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states circumstances occurred while he was absent without leave (AWOL) that were out of his control.  He also states that he wants an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of obtaining benefits.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of 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 records show:

	a.  he enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 October 1975;

	b.  he was awarded military occupational specialty 36K (Tactical Wire Operations Specialist); and

	c.  on 7 September 1978, he was charged with being AWOL from on or about 
31 March to 5 June 1978; and from on or about 20 June to 6 September 1978 (144 days).

3.  On 15 September 1978, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.

4.  After consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He acknowledged he had been advised of and understood his rights under the UCMJ, and that he could receive an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge which would deprive him of many or all of his benefits as a veteran, that he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received an UOTHC discharge.

5.  In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge against him, or to a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He further acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request was approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.

6.  On 25 September 1978, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued DD Form 794A (Under Other than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate).

7.  On 29 September 1978, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  He had completed 2 years, 6 months, and 13 days of creditable active duty military service and had accrued a total of 144 days of time lost due to AWOL.

8.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) 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 punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trail by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

10.  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.

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 Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

12.   Under the UCMJ, the maximum punishment allowed for violation of Article 86, for AWOL of more than 30 days is a dishonorable discharge and confinement for 1 year.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his UOTHC should be upgraded because circumstances had occurred that were out his control.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  After consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He acknowledged he had been advised of and understood his rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice; that he could receive an UOTHC discharge which would deprive him of many or all of his benefits as a veteran; and that he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received an UOTHC discharge.

4.  Based on his two periods of AWOL the applicant's service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge.

5.  The applicant's desire to obtain benefits based on his military service is not justification for an upgrade of his discharge.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

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)                                         AR20100017895





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100017895



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070006420

    Original file (20070006420.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to general. Counsel requests, in effect, that the applicant's discharge be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions. Counsel further requests that the Board consider clemency based on the nearly 30 years since his discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009287

    Original file (20100009287.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to general. On 7 November 1978, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions. There is no policy, regulation, directive or law that provides for the automatic upgrade of a less than honorable discharge from military service, regardless of how much time has passed.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140005336

    Original file (20140005336.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he understood by requesting discharge he was admitting guilt to the charge against him, or to a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. On 18 March 1986, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009049

    Original file (20120009049.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 24 March 1978, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with a UOTHC discharge. Although an honorable discharge (HD) or general discharge (GD) is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009252

    Original file (20100009252.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. On 4 December 1978, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and directed he receive a UOTHC discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010528

    Original file (20110010528.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant acknowledged he: a. was making the request of his own free will and he had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person; b. had been advised of the implications that were attached to his request and that by submitting his request he also acknowledged he was guilty of the charges against him or of a lesser included offense that also provided for the imposition of a bad conduct or a dishonorable discharge; c. did not desire further rehabilitation or desire to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100787C070208

    Original file (2004100787C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests that his discharge be upgraded. 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 at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016539

    Original file (20110016539.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He acknowledged he had been advised of and understood his rights under the UCMJ, he could receive a discharge UOTHC which would deprive him of many or all of his benefits as a veteran, and he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received a discharge UOTHC. In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge against him or to a lesser-included offense that also authorized the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009537

    Original file (20120009537.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). On 26 April 1978, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed he be discharged in the lowest enlisted grade under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with a UOTHC discharge. Although an honorable discharge (HD) or general discharge (GD) is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002228C070206

    Original file (20050002228C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Carmen Duncan | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 19 December 2003, the ADRB considered the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge. The applicant's request to have his UOTHC upgraded and the supporting documents he submitted were carefully considered.