Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003075
Original file (20110003075.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		
		BOARD DATE:	  18 August 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110003075 


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 a general discharge.

2.  The applicant states he is requesting the change in order to obtain a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) identification card.

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge 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 he enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 November 1985 and he held military occupational specialty 13B (Cannon Crewmember).  He was awarded the Army Service Ribbon.

3.  On 5 August 1986, he received nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failing to go to his appointed place of duty. 

4.  He was reported absent without leave (AWOL) from his assigned unit as follows:

* 18 - 23 September 1986
* 23 - 30 September 1986
* 1 - 5 October 1986
* 5 October - 3 November 1986

5.  On 4 November 1986, he was dropped from the rolls (DFR) of his organization.  On 12 December 1986, he surrendered to military authorities and was returned to military control.  

6.  On 19 December 1986, court-martial charges were preferred against him for one specification of being AWOL from 5 October to 12 December 1986.

7.  On 19 December 1986, he 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 or dishonorable discharge, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the 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 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.

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

9. On 16 January 1987, his immediate commander recommended approval of his request for a discharge with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.  

10.  On 18 February 1987, the separation authority approved his request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service and directed the issuance of an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.

11.  On 23 March 1987, he was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged by reason of "for the good of the service - in lieu of court-martial" with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service.  He completed 1 year, 1 month, and 17 days of creditable active service with 85 days of lost time.

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

13.  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 included 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.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

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 evidence of record shows the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ 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.  As such, he voluntarily requested a discharge to avoid a trial by court-martial.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.
2.  His record of service shows he went AWOL repeatedly and he was AWOL for almost 3 months at the time he was returned to military control.  Based on this record of misconduct, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct rendered his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, he is not entitled to a general discharge.

3.  The ABCMR does not grant requests for an upgrade of discharges solely for the purpose of making a person eligible for VA or other benefits.  Every case is individually decided based upon its merits.

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)                                         AR20110003075



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110003075



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005920

    Original file (20090005920.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 18 February 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an under other than honorable conditions discharge. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001786

    Original file (20120001786.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, about 10 September 1986, he was told he had 5 days to out-process for an overseas assignment. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged by reason of for the good of the service - in lieu of court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. There is no evidence and the applicant did not provide any evidence that shows he was advised by the unit XO that his enlistment contract...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007079

    Original file (20090007079.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 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 | CY2010 | 20100018662

    Original file (20100018662.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that her discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge. The appropriate authority approved her request on 27 April 1987 and directed that the applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions. The applicant offered no mitigating circumstances to explain her absence at the time she was apprehended or when she submitted her request for discharge and her explanation to the Board is not supported by either the evidence...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013063

    Original file (20090013063.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded. On 16 June 1989, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080019500

    Original file (20080019500.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The appropriate authority approved his request on 6 December 1989 and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions. Paragraph 3-7b of Army Regulation 635-200 provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. _______XXX_______________ 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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070016312

    Original file (20070016312.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Director Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: M Chairperson M Member M Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant provides: a. After just 18 days in Germany, he deserted and returned to the United States.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110014116

    Original file (20110014116.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The appropriate authority approved her request for discharge on 21 September 1987 and directed her discharge under other than honorable conditions. Accordingly, on 3 November 1987, she was discharged under other than honorable conditions 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 | CY2009 | 20090005539

    Original file (20090005539.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 20 November 1987, the applicant consulted with counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The available evidence shows the applicant was punished under the UCMJ on two occasions, charged with being AWOL, and had 110 days of lost time.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018826

    Original file (20130018826.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate. b. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.