Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110014803
Original file (20110014803.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		

		BOARD DATE:	  20 December 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110014803 


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, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded. 

2.  The applicant states he is currently in stage 4 cancer and he is being cared for at the Veterans Medical Center, Vancouver, Washington.  He was separated from service when he was 19 years old and he did not even know what he was signing.  Through his life he has made good money working on oil rigs.  He is well respected in his community and believes that his life merits a change in his discharge.  He presently serves as a reverend in the New Life Church of Christ. The applicant did not run to Canada or go absent without leave (AWOL).

3.  The applicant does not provide any evidence.

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 personnel records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 February 1973.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13A (Field Artillery).  The highest grade he attained was pay grade E-2.

3.  The applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record), Item 44 (Time Lost), shows that the applicant was AWOL from 27 July 1973 to 26 August 1973 and dropped from the rolls from 27 August 1973 to 11 November 1973.  

4.  The applicant's record is void of a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge processing.  The record does contain a properly-constituted DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) which shows he was discharged on 24 January 1974 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 with issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  It further shows that at the time he had completed 7 months and 24 days of total active service with 107 days of time lost due to AWOL.

5.  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.

6.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge, could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial charges were preferred, Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting  
a request for discharge for the good of the service.  Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses charged type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of Veterans Administration (VA) benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge.  At the time, an Undesirable Discharge Certificate would normally be furnished an individual who was discharged for the good of the Service.

7.  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.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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 honorable discharge.  

9.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR.  The regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge.  It appears that he was charged with the commission of offense(s) punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice 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.  The applicant is presumed to have voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In doing so, he waived his opportunity to appear before a court-martial.  It is also presumed that all requirements of law and regulation were met, and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.

2.  The applicant's contention that his discharge should be upgraded because he is good citizen was carefully considered and found to be insufficient in merit.  There is no evidence and the applicant did not present any evidence which shows that the discharge he received in 1974 was unjust and or unfair.

3.  The ABCMR does not grant requests for the upgrade of discharges solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for veterans or medical benefits.  Every case is individually decided based upon its merits when an applicant requests a change in his or her discharge.  Additionally, the granting of veteran's benefits is not within the purview of the ABCMR and any questions regarding eligibility for VA benefits should be addressed to the VA.

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)                                         AR20110014803



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110014803



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019201

    Original file (20100019201.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. On 1 December 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110018506

    Original file (20110018506.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 19 October 1973 after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for 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. There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations. Since his brief record of service included one NJP and 68 days of lost...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110023599

    Original file (20110023599.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge. On 14 July 1981, after careful consideration of the applicant's military records and all other available evidence, the Army Discharge Review Board determined he was properly discharged. __________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 | CY2012 | 20120009753

    Original file (20120009753.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015828

    Original file (20090015828.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $25.00 pay and 5 days of restriction; c. on 10 September 1973, for being absent without leave (AWOL) during the period on or about 7 August 1973 through on or about 4 September 1973. He also acknowledged that he understood that by requesting discharge he understood that if the discharge request was approved, he may be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The DD Form 214 he was...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100030411

    Original file (20100030411.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 25 February 1974, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for 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. On 4 March 1974, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed the issuance of an undesirable discharge. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019595

    Original file (20100019595.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The immediate commander cited the applicant's extensive history of AWOL. On 6 June 1974, 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 he was issued shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100023089

    Original file (20100023089.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In his request for discharge, he acknowledged he understood that if the discharge request was approved, he may be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The evidence of record shows he was nearly 18 years of age at the time he enlisted in the Regular Army and he was over 18 years of age at the time he committed the offenses that led to his discharge. ____________X___________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012156

    Original file (20100012156.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 24 April 1973 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. Accordingly, the applicant was separated with an undesirable discharge on 22 June 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant's...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016284

    Original file (20100016284.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 16 December 1974, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions. Chapter 10, of the version in effect at the time, provides that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after...