BOARD DATE: 12 July 2011
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100030336
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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.
2. The applicant states there were no charges filed against him for anything.
3. The applicant provides 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. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 October 1976 for a period of 3 years. He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 55B (ammunition specialist).
3. On 25 April 1977, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for larceny.
4. On 27 May 1977, NJP was imposed against the applicant for disobeying two lawful orders and using provoking words towards a sergeant.
5. On 4 November 1977, NJP was imposed against the applicant for sleeping on post.
6. His record is void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge. However, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial on 2 May 1999 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. He completed a total of 2 years, 6 months, and 13 days of creditable active service.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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. He contends there were no charges filed against him. However, it appears he was charged with the commission of offense(s) punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice 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 would have 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. Without having the discharge packet to consider, it is presumed his characterization of service was commensurate with his overall record of service.
2. 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 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) AR20100030336
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100030336
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027868
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 22 March 1976 nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty (Guard Duty) and for driving while under the influence of alcohol.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016415
The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to honorable. There is no evidence that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate, but the separation authority may direct an honorable or a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record and if the Soldier's record is so meritorious that any...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021830
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge or a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007257
The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge on 28 March 1978 and directed the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions. The fact that he was 17 years old at the time of his enlistment is not a basis for upgrading his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010815
The applicant requests his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable. On 1 May 1978, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge or a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110006080
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 September 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110006080 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 29 November 1977, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge and directed issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016511
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge. On 8 March 1977, the appropriate authority (a major general) approved his request for discharge and directed the applicant be given an under other than honorable conditions discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100028129
The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions. Item 27 (Reenlistment Code) of the DD Form 214 he received for this period of service shows "NA" [not applicable]. His records show he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 1 March 1977 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020374
The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions to an honorable discharge. On 5 December 1984 after considering all of the available evidence, the ADRB determined that the applicant's discharge was both proper and equitable under the circumstances and voted unanimously to deny the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against him...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012617
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Evidence of record shows the applicants request for separation under the provisions of Chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial was voluntary, administratively correct, and in compliance with applicable regulations. The applicants record shows he received nonjudicial punishment for a short period of being AWOL and that charges were preferred against him after he accrued in excess...