Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100029059
Original file (20100029059.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  16 June 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100029059 


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 an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states he was young and did not understand how his discharge would affect him in the future.

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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 November 1972 at the age of 17 years, 8 months, and 3 days.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman).  The highest rank/grade he attained while serving on active duty was private first class (PFC)/E-3.

3.  The applicant was punished under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on 10 occasions for the offenses indicated:

   a.  on 28 January 1973, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty; 

   b.  on 1 May 1973, for being absent from his unit; 
   
   c.  on 30 November 1973, for willfully disobeying a lawful order; 
   
   d.  on 18 March 1974, for being absent from his unit; 
   
   e.  on 9 April and on 7 July 1975, for disobeying a lawful order; 
   
   f.  on 18 August 1975, for wrongfully possessing marijuana residue; 
   
   g.  on 8 September and on 26 October 1975, for willfully disobeying a lawful command; and

   h.  on 6 November 1975, for wrongfully possessing marijuana.

4.  The applicant was counseled by his chain of command on 14 separate occasions for his unsatisfactory attitude and duty performance.

5.  On 6 October 1975, the applicant was notified of initiation of separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 13 for unfitness.  

6.  On 7 October 1975, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, the possible effects of a discharge, and of the rights available to him.  

7.  On 11 November 1975, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, and directed that he be issued a discharge under other than honorable conditions.



8.  On 24 November 1975, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The
DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he was separated under other than honorable conditions and he completed 3 years and 7 days of creditable active military service with 3 days of lost time.

9.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the policy and prescribes the procedures for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13, in effect at that time, applied to separation for unfitness and unsuitability.  Paragraph 13-5a provided for separation for unfitness, which included frequent incidents of a discreditable nature, sexual perversion, drug abuse, an established pattern of shirking, failure to pay just debts, failure to support dependents, and homosexual acts.  When separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable, under other than honorable conditions discharge was 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.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge was carefully considered; however, there is insufficient evidence to support his request.

2.  The applicant was over 18 years of age at the time he committed the majority of his offenses.  There is no evidence that indicates the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service.  

3.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, the applicant's discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.
4.  Based on his record of indiscipline which includes 10 punishments under Article 15 and 14 counseling statements, the applicant's service clearly did not meet the standard of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant 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)                                         AR20100029059



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100029059



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021599

    Original file (20110021599.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 13 June 1975, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 and ordered the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. He was also between 19 and 21 years of age at the time of his misconduct.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011779

    Original file (20140011779.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he was discharged on 9 October 1975 under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 13-5a(1), with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. A review of the applicant's military personnel records failed to reveal any evidence that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The evidence of record shows the applicant's...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140005424

    Original file (20140005424.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 November 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140005424 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 29 August 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board determined that he had been properly discharged from his 1975 separation. The applicant accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ on 20 December 1977, for willfully disobeying a lawful order from his superior noncommissioned officer.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013792

    Original file (20140013792.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 21 November 1975, the applicant appeared before a board of officers and was represented by counsel. There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant 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 Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020540

    Original file (20100020540.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 31 March 1976, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service because charges had been preferred against him under the UCMJ which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. He further acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request were approved, he might be discharged under conditions other than honorable and furnished...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011290

    Original file (20120011290.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant's records contain a recommendation, dated 11 September 1975, by his unit commander asking that he be discharged from the military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 13, due to unfitness. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records paragraph 2-9 provides that the Board begins its consideration of each case...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001023

    Original file (20120001023.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's discharge packet is not available for review; however, his official military personnel file (OMPF) contains a DD form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) that shows on 1 December 1976, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 13-5a(1) with a separation program designator (SPD) code of JKA for unfitness by reason of frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with military or civilian...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016153

    Original file (20080016153.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded. 13 May 1969 to 16 August 1969 – a period of 96 days; c. 8 October 1969 to 17 November 1969 – a period of 41 days; d. 28 January 1975 to 10 February 1975 – a period of 14 days; e. 5 March 1975 to 23 March 1975 – a period of 19 days; and f. 21 April 1975 to 11 August 1975 – a period of 113 days. In connection with such a discharge, the applicant was charged with the commission of an...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021458

    Original file (20100021458.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 1 March 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100021458 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-10, provides that a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a General or Special Court-Martial. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000004

    Original file (20110000004.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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.