Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110012915
Original file (20110012915.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		
		BOARD DATE:	 20 December 2011 

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110012915 


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.  He states he needs his discharge upgraded to qualify to enter a Boston veterans' homeless shelter.  He states he was told his discharge would automatically be upgraded after 5 years.

3.  He 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 military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 July 1979.  He did not complete advanced individual training and was not awarded a military occupational specialty.  The highest rank/pay grade he held was private/pay grade E-1.

3.  On 24 November 1981, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) during the period 9 October 1980 to 23 November 1981.

4.  On 23 November 1981, he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations).  He acknowledged he was making the request of his own free will and had not been subjected to coercion with respect to his request for discharge.  He acknowledged he had been advised of the implications that were attached to his request.  He acknowledged he understood the elements of the offenses(s) charged and was guilty of the charge(s) against him or of a lesser-included offense(s) which also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He acknowledged he understood if his discharge request were approved he might be discharged under other than honorable conditions.  He acknowledged he had been advised and understood the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge and that as a result of the issuance of such a discharge he would be deprived of many benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  He also acknowledged he understood he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

5.  On 2 December 1981, the separation authority approved his request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, and directed that he be given an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

6.  On 31 December 1981, he was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he completed 1 year, 4 months, and 1 day of active service with 1 year, 1 month, and 14 days lost time.

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.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 states 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.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, states 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 records show court-martial charges were preferred against him for being AWOL for 1 year, 1 month, and 14 days.

2.  He voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service - in lieu of a trial by court-martial.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the charge or of a lesser included offense which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  This serious misconduct warranted a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  Both his characterization of service and the reason for discharge were appropriate considering the facts of the case.  Therefore, he was properly and equitably discharged and he is not entitled to a general discharge.  The records contain no indication of procedural or other errors that would have jeopardized his rights.

3.  The Army does not have, and has never had, any policy to automatically upgrade a discharge based on the passage of time.

4.  The ABCMR does not grant requests for upgrade of discharges solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible for veterans or other benefits.  Every case is individually decided based upon its merits when an applicant requests a change in his or her discharge.

5.  In view of the foregoing, 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)                                         AR20110012915



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110012915



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007832

    Original file (20120007832.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 23 January 1981, 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 - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10 due to charges being preferred against him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. There is no evidence indicating he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021791

    Original file (20110021791.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. He acknowledged he understood if his discharge request were approved he might be discharged under other than honorable conditions. He was charged with being AWOL for a period of 190 days.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003206

    Original file (20150003206.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    c. He acknowledged he understood that, if his request for discharge was accepted, he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service and he received an under other than honorable conditions discharge. ...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016623

    Original file (20140016623.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    c. He acknowledged he understood that, if his request for discharge was accepted, he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service and he received an under other than honorable conditions discharge. b. Paragraph 3-7b states a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018176

    Original file (20080018176.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a honorable discharge. He also states that he was told his discharge would be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions after 6 months. Based on the applicant's record of indiscipline, his service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021505

    Original file (20090021505.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded. The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the Army National Guard on 23 February 1977 and served until he was issued a general discharge and involuntarily ordered to active duty on 11 July 1978. The applicant stated that he understood he could request this discharge for the good of the service because charges had been preferred against him under the UCMJ which authorized the imposition...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019427

    Original file (20130019427.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. After consulting with counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. a. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018821

    Original file (20090018821.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. He further acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request was approved, he might be discharged under conditions other than honorable and furnished an Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate. At the time of the applicant's separation, an under other than honorable conditions discharge was appropriate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012741

    Original file (20130012741.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate. However, the evidence of record does not support his request for an upgrade of his UOTHC discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130004390

    Original file (20130004390.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. He indicated he understood he could request discharge 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. At the time, a UOTHC discharge was normally considered appropriate for Soldiers separated for the good of the service.