Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110014262
Original file (20110014262.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  7 February 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110014262 


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 general discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states:

* he can’t get a grant for school or Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) benefits because his discharge is not honorable
* he can’t work at a public job anymore because he gets in too much trouble because of his hearing problem

3.  The applicant provides:

* VA Form 21-526b (DVA - Veteran’s Supplemental Claim for Compensation), dated 15 September 2010
* Documentation on tinnitus
* A letter from the DVA, dated 29 December 2008
* A letter from the Illinois Student Assistance Commission, dated 1 October 2010
* His DD Form 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 was inducted into the Army of the United States on 
29 November 1966.  He completed his training and he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (light weapons infantryman).

3.  On 9 August 1967, he was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 29 May 1967 to 11 July 1967.  He was sentenced to perform hard labor for 2 months.  On 16 August 1967, the convening authority approved the sentence.

4.  On 31 August 1967, he submitted an application for separation due to hardship.  His application for a hardship discharge was approved.

5.  He was accordingly discharged on 7 September 1967 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 6, for hardship with a general discharge.  He completed 7 months and 27 days of total active service with 43 days of time lost.

6.  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.

7.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 6 of this regulation, in effect at the time, provides for separation due to dependency or hardship.  The regulation provided that hardship existed when, in circumstances not involving death or disability of a member of his family, separation from the Service will materially affect the care or support of the family by alleviating undue and genuine hardship.  Service of Soldiers separated because of dependency or hardship under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.


8.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contentions were noted.  However, a discharge is not changed for the purpose of obtaining DVA or State benefits.

2.  His brief record of service included one special court-martial conviction and
43 days of time lost.  As a result, his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service is not sufficient to warrant an honorable discharge.

3.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. 

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

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)                                         AR20110014262



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110014262



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004281C070206

    Original file (20050004281C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provided new evidence which will be considered by the Board. The Board did not make that statement; the Record of Proceedings only recorded what the 30 December 1968 disapproval of his request for hardship discharge had stated. The [AWOL] incidents that occurred during the applicant's time in the Army were the only issues relevant to the ABCMR's consideration of his request for an upgraded discharge as the Board had no authority to determine he was not qualified for induction.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140020880

    Original file (20140020880.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests correction of his record to show he held the rank of specialist four (SP4/E-4) on the date of his discharge and that his characterization of service was honorable. The applicant states: a. he held the rank and grade of SP4/E-4 at the time of his discharge; and b. he received an honorable discharge (HD) not a hardship discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082300C070215

    Original file (2002082300C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the reason and authority for his discharge be corrected from Dependency to Hardship. In support of his request, he submits a letter from the DVA dated 9 October 2002, which informed the applicant that DVA medical benefits are limited to those soldiers who served 24 months of active duty unless discharged for hardship or disability.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130004151

    Original file (20130004151.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    After consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for 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. On 20 June 1997, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 with an under other than honorable conditions discharge and directed the applicant be reduced to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010830

    Original file (20110010830.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 22 July 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, and directed the issuance of an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. There is no evidence which shows the applicant's command considered hardship as a basis for his discharge or he requested discharge for hardship reasons. _______ _X _______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100001042

    Original file (20100001042.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. __________ 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 | CY2011 | 20110008248

    Original file (20110008248.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show the narrative reason for his separation as hardship instead of the reason currently shown. It provides that veterans who enlisted after September 7, 1980, or who entered active duty after 16 October 1981, must have served 24 continuous months or the full period for which they were called to active duty in order to be eligible. Nevertheless, the evidence of record...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011120

    Original file (20080011120.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no evidence which indicates the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The evidence does not support changing the applicant’s undesirable discharge to a general under honorable conditions discharge. The Soldier’s record of service does not warrant a general discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003505

    Original file (20110003505.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests correction of item 12c (Net Active Service This Period) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show he completed 2 years of service. His total length of service for the period 1 December 1982 through 29 November 1984 is 1 year, 11 months, and 29 days as follows: Year(s) Month(s) Day(s) 1984 11 29 (Separation Date) - 1982 12 1 (Date of Entry) = 1 11 28 + 1 (Inclusive Day) = 1 11 29 5. While the evidence of record clearly shows he...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008190

    Original file (20090008190.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 August 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090008190 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. There is no evidence of record and the applicant provides no evidence to show why his discharge should be changed to a hardship discharge.