Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110008223
Original file (20110008223.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  4 October 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110008223 


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 upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable.

2.  He states he has been a good citizen since his discharge and would "like to be part of the veterans [sic] life style."

3.  He provides a Police of Puerto Rico Certificate of No Penal Record and 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 August 1982.  

3.  A DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) shows, on 19 March 1986, he was charged with being absent without leave (AWOL) from on or about 25 June 1984 to on or about 11 March 1986.  

4.  On 19 March 1986, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10.  Prior to submitting his request, he consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for his contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum possible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, and the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

5.  In his voluntary request for discharge, he acknowledged he understood if his request was accepted he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions.  He further acknowledged he understood if he received an under other than honorable conditions discharge, he could:

* be deprived of many or all Army benefits
* be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration
* be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws
* encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life

6.  On 6 May 1986, the separation authority approved his request and directed he be discharged under other than honorable conditions.  On 16 May 1986, he was discharged accordingly.  His DD Form 214 shows he completed 2 years and 14 days of total active service with 418 days of time lost.

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

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

	a.  Chapter 10 of the 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 discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7a provides that an HD 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 (GD) 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 record shows the applicant was charged with the commission of offenses 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.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.

2.  His record shows he was AWOL 418 days.  Based on this record of indiscipline, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to a GD or an HD.

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)                                         AR20110008223





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110008223



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020765

    Original file (20090020765.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 18 December 1986, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100024300

    Original file (20100024300.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 15 August 1986, the separation authority approved the applicant's 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. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged for the good of the service - in lieu of trial court-martial with a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110013139

    Original file (20110013139.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 14 November 1986, the separation authority approved the applicant's 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, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time shows he was discharged for the good of the service - in lieu of a court-martial with a characterization of service of under other...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011558

    Original file (20140011558.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge to an honorable discharge. On 28 January 1986, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006660

    Original file (20120006660.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 30 June 1986, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and after being advised of the basis of the contemplated trial by court-martial and the maximum permissible punishment under the UCMJ, the possible effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions, and the rights and procedures available to him, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003075

    Original file (20110003075.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to a general discharge. 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. 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021250

    Original file (20090021250.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 23 December 1986, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service and directed that he be discharged with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of that regulation 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018542

    Original file (20090018542.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 31 July 1986, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service. The applicant was advised at the time he requested discharge that he may be ineligible for VA benefits based on the characterization of his discharge. In view of the foregoing, the evidence is insufficient for upgrading the applicant's discharge to a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024438

    Original file (20110024438.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 10 September 1986, following counseling, the applicant submitted a voluntary written request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Separations). 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002674

    Original file (20150002674.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 25 February 1986, he consulted with 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 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.