Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000702
Original file (20110000702.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		

		BOARD DATE:	  12 July 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110000702 


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 (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.  

2.  He states that he would like to honor his father.  He also states that he believes the change in the characterization of his service will assist him in securing jobs, help him be more productive in his community, and boost his self-esteem.

3.  He provides no additional documents.  

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 8 October 1976 for period of 
3.  On 20 July 1977, charges were preferred against him for failing to go his appointed place of duty, failing to obey a lawful order, intentionally injuring himself by cutting his wrists with a piece of glass, and feigning a toothache for the purpose of avoiding his duty as an enlisted member.  

4.  On 25 July 1977, an additional charge was preferred against him for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  

5.  He consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offenses charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and that he might be ineligible for many or all Army benefits administered by the Veterans Administration if a UOTHC discharge was issued.  He did not submit statements in his own behalf.  

6.  The separation authority approved his request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of court-martial with the issuance of a UOTHC discharge.

7.  He was discharged on 12 September 1977 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a UOTHC Discharge Certificate.  He completed 11 months and 5 days of creditable active service.  

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  

   a.  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, 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 UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate.

   b.  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.
   c.  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’s statements in regard to the reasons he would like his discharge upgraded are acknowledged.  However, these personal reasons are insufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  

2.  The applicant's voluntary request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  His service record does not indicate the request was made under coercion or duress.  

3.  He was advised of the effects of a UOTHC discharge.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined.

4.  A UOTHC discharge was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under chapter 10.  It appears the separation authority determined the applicant's overall service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty to warrant a general or fully honorable discharge.  

5.  The evidence of record does not indicate the actions taken in his case were in error or unjust.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting the 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)                                         AR20110000702



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110000702



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019032

    Original file (20110019032.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 26 April 1978, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and 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. On 8 May 1978, the approving authority accepted the applicant's request for discharge and directed his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with a UOTHC character of service. There is no record to show the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014967C071029

    Original file (20060014967C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016760

    Original file (20100016760.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to an honorable discharge. Subsequent to receiving legal counsel, he voluntarily requested 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. Chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020125

    Original file (20090020125.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded. He stated he wanted a chapter 10 discharge because of family problems. The applicant was discharged on 23 November 1977 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a UOTHC discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017377

    Original file (20090017377.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was discharged from active duty on 28 October 1977 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a UOTHC discharge. However, he admits in his self-authored statement that he was not getting help with his neck and back pain, became depressed, and wanted to get out of the Army. There is no evidence of record which indicates the actions taken in his case were in error or unjust; therefore, there is no basis for granting the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016415

    Original file (20140016415.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2007 | 20070018857

    Original file (20070018857.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 9 July 1974, the applicant was honorably discharged. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000868

    Original file (20130000868.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 to a general discharge. There is no evidence the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012849

    Original file (20140012849.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge. He entered active duty for training (ADT) on 28 December 1975. On or about 1 December 1977, after consulting with counsel, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Separations), chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court-martial.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019363

    Original file (20090019363.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant was discharged from active duty on 2 August 1978 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a UOTHC discharge. The evidence of record shows that prior to the applicant's separation in August 1978, competent medical authority determined that he was then medically qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111111.