IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 26 January 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110013111
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 undesirable discharge (UD) to an honorable discharge (HD).
2. The applicant states:
* he had an HD for prior service
* after reenlisting, he became a drug abuser
* he was absent without leave (AWOL) to avoid drugs
* upon return to military control, he was punished and placed in the stockade
* when he was released, he was transferred and became the U.S. Army South Chaplain's driver
* things went well until he was arrested in a known Panamanian drug bar
* he was charged, pleaded not guilty, was jailed, and was convicted
* he was sexually assaulted in jail before U.S. Forces gained his release
* he became reclusive and again was AWOL
3. The applicant provides:
* a self-authored letter
* two DD Forms 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge)
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 for 3 years on 22 May 1968. He was trained in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (light weapons infantryman) and was assigned to U.S. Army South, Panama.
3. On 20 October 1969, the applicant was honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment. He reenlisted on 21 October 1969 for 6 years.
4. There is no administrative separation packet in the applicant's official military personnel file. However, the record does contain two records of nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for:
a. failing to go to his appointed place of duty on or about 0730 hours, 2 December 1969, and
b. willfully disobeying a lawful order to get a haircut on or about 1545 hours, 13 May 1969.
5. On 5 May 1970, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from on or about 22 February 1970 to on or about 9 March 1970.
6. On 15 January 1971, the applicant was discharged with an under other than honorable conditions character of service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations Discharge Unfitness and Unsuitability) for unfitness. His DD Form 214 lists his periods of lost time as:
* 2 January 1970-7 January 1970
* 10 January 1970-11 February 1970
* 22 February 1970-7 April 1970
* 2 May 1970-3 May 1970
* 11 June 1970-11 June 1970
* 30 June 1970-8 October 1970
* 10 November 1970-10 December 1970
7. There is no record the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board seeking a discharge upgrade during that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
8. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability. The regulation provided that an individual was subject to separation for unfitness because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. When separation for unfitness was warranted, a UD was normally considered appropriate.
9. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) states the characterization of service at separation will be based on the quality of the Soldier's service subject to the limitations under the various reasons for separation.
a. Paragraph 3-7a states 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.
b. Paragraph 3-7b states 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 HD. 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 requests his UD be upgraded to an HD.
2. There is no evidence of record and the applicant has provided no evidence to show he was a drug abuser or that he was sexually assaulted in a Panamanian jail. The record does show he exhibited a pattern of misconduct.
3. The applicant's misconduct is well documented and certainly would have supported a UD for unfitness under Army Regulation 635-212.
4. The applicant's administrative separation packet is not available, but regularity is presumed in his discharge proceedings and there is a presumption it was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations without procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. There is insufficient evidence to warrant 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 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) AR20110013111
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110013111
4
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014014
x The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The record does include a separation document (DD Form 214) that shows he was separated on 8 October 1971, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason unfitness (involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities), and that he received an UD. There is no evidence showing that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9509654C070209
On 21 May 1970, while serving in Vietnam, he reenlisted, in pay grade E-3, for 3 years. On 12 January 1971, the applicants commander submitted a request recommending that the applicant be required to appear before a board of officers convened under Army Regulation 635-212 for the purpose of determining whether he should be discharged before the expiration of his term of service. The applicants DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) indicates that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081397C070215
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002081397SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20030710TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UD)DATE OF DISCHARGE19700926DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-212DISCHARGE REASONA51.00BOARD DECISION(DENY)REVIEW AUTHORITYISSUES...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011758
The separation authority could authorize an HD or a general under honorable conditions discharge (GD) if supported by the member's overall record of service; however, a UD was normally considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) is the current regulation governing enlisted separations provides guidance for issuing an HD in paragraph 3-7a. Given the applicant's disciplinary history, his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021730
The psychiatrist recommended the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability. Given the circumstances in this case, the applicant's discharge was inequitable for the following reasons: * he served 4 years, 1 month, and 4 days of creditable service * he served in Vietnam for 1 year, 8 months, and 27 days * he was twice wounded and twice cited for meritorious service * he was promoted to SSG/E-6 in three short years * from 30 November 1966 to 7 May...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010488
BOARD DATE: 12 February 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140010488 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). _______ _ 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072387C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 21 October 1971, the applicant’s commander notified him of recommended separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness. On 15 March 1972, the separation authority approved the board’s recommen-dation and directed that he be discharged with a UD, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006831
The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD) to a general or an honorable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations) states in: a. Paragraph 3-7a - an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The Commander, Special Processing Detachment, after interviewing the applicant and reviewing his records recommended the applicant be discharged for unfitness based on 315 days of lost time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002627
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a GD is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. There is no evidence to confirm the applicant's claim that his 1SG told him to leave the Army without any formal or official separation processing as required by regulation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110014522
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). There is no indication the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15 year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.