Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020787
Original file (20100020787.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		
		BOARD DATE:	  15 February 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100020787 


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 a general under honorable conditions discharge.

2.  The applicant states there was a misunderstanding.  Fresh out of Vietnam, he was immature and did not realize what he was doing.  All his service was in combat except for 6 to 12 months of stateside service at Fort Jackson, SC.  He just wanted out the service but he did not realize he would receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He is now trying to receive Department of Veterans Affairs medical care and needs his character of service upgraded.

3.  The applicant provides his DD Forms 214 (Armed Forces of the United States 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 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 he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years on 10 July 1968 and held military occupational specialty 63B (Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).  

3.  He served in Vietnam from 9 December 1968 to 8 December 1969.  He was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, and Vietnam Campaign Medal.

4.  He was honorably discharged on 8 April 1970 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment and executed a 4-year reenlistment on 9 April 1970.  He again served in Vietnam from 1 July 1970 to 28 July 1972.  He was later reassigned to Fort Jackson, SC.

5.  On 17 February 1973, Military Police officials apprehended the applicant for driving under the influence and misappropriation of a Government vehicle.

6.  On 26 February 1973, his command preferred court-martial charges against him for one specification of misappropriation of a Government vehicle.

7.  On 27 February 1973, the applicant consulted with legal counsel who advised him of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct discharge or a discharge under other than honorable conditions, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the possible effects of a request for discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  Following consultation with legal counsel, he requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial in accordance with chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations).

8.  In his request for discharge, he acknowledged he understood that if the discharge request were approved, he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He also acknowledged he understood that he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws, and that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life. 


9.  On 12 March 1973, consistent with the applicant's chain of command's recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial and directed that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  On 15 March 1973, he was accordingly discharged.  

10.  The DD Form 214 he was issued for this period of service shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 in lieu of trial by a court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions character of service.  He completed a total of 5 years, 8 months, and 5 days of creditable active military service.

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

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 provides 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.

13.  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

14.  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 contends that his discharge should be upgraded.

2.  His service in Vietnam is noted.  However, his records show he was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.  Discharges under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He voluntarily, willingly, and in writing requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.

3.  Based on his record of indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct also renders his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable or a general 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.



      _______ _   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)                                         AR20100020787



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100020787



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018510

    Original file (20100018510.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 2 June 1971, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for 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 applicant was 19 years old when he was inducted and he completed his training. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084642C070212

    Original file (2003084642C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant submitted two requests to the Army Discharge Review Board asking that his discharge be upgraded. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded: However, the applicant himself stated in his request for discharge that he had no problems in the Army until his arrival in Alaska.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012514

    Original file (20080012514.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Accordingly, he was discharged with an undesirable discharge, characterized as under other than honorable conditions on 5 October 1973, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. There is no evidence 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. When authorized, it is issued to a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017088

    Original file (20120017088.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 28 July 1971, the applicant's company commander issued the applicant a Certificate of Unsuitability for Reenlistment. On 22 September 1971, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. ____________x_____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009036

    Original file (20130009036.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In his request for discharge he indicated: a. The applicant was accordingly discharged on 25 November 1974. His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) for this period shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004752C070206

    Original file (20050004752C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that all of the blocks on his DD Form 214 be completed and that he be provided an explanation of why he received a discharge under other than honorable conditions. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge on 11 January 1974 and that board found that his discharge was both proper and equitable and denied his request on 6 February 1974. That regulation also provided that information blocks contained on the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007209

    Original file (20140007209.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. d. Headquarters, Fort Meade, MD Special Orders Number 148, issued on 26 July 1973, ordered his discharge under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 in lieu of a court-martial with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions, effective 30 July 1973. e. A duly-constituted DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 30 July 1973 under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040008698C070208

    Original file (20040008698C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. Counsel requests, in effect, that the Board exercise sound equitable principles regarding the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge and take into consideration all of the factors associated with his service. There is no evidence 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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071415C070402

    Original file (2002071415C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021892

    Original file (20120021892.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 1 December 1972, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for 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. On 22 December 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. There is no evidence that indicates he was any less mature than...