BOARD DATE: 22 March 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110018624
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, an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge.
2. The applicant states that he was on leave and he lost his left hand in an accident. He was in a state of deep depression and stress that he neglected to inform the Army. As a result of this neglect, he was reported absent without leave (AWOL). He did not mean to mislead the Army but he was not in the right frame of mind to handle any of his affairs.
3. The applicant provides:
* DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty)
* Three letters of support/character reference
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 applicants 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 applicants 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 records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 March 1974 and he held military occupational specialty (MOS) 05E (Voice Radio Operator).
3. On 19 June 1974, while in training, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for assaulting another Soldier.
4. Upon completion of MOS training, he was placed on assignment instructions to Germany; however, he failed to report.
5. On 14 August 1974, he was reported in an AWOL status and on 13 September 1974, he was dropped from the Army rolls as a deserter. He was apprehended by civil authorities in Dallas, TX, on local charges wherein an inquiry reflected his deserter status. He was returned to military authorities at Fort Hood, TX, on 24 June 1976.
6. The complete facts and circumstances of the applicants discharge are not available for review with this case. However, his records contain the following documents:
a. A copy of Order 69-250, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Field Artillery Center and Fort Sill, Fort Sill, OK, on 7 September 1976 ordering his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, effective 8 September 1976;
b. DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form), dated 25 August 1976, wherein he acknowledged that the reason for his separation was a discharge under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200, and
c. A duly-constituted DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 8 September 1976 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of a court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions character of service. This form also shows he completed 3 months and 22 days of creditable active service and he had 680 days of lost time.
7. There is no indication in his records that shows he suffered an injury or an illness that may have led to the loss of a limb.
8. There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitation.
9. He submitted three character reference letters and/or letters of support from his former spouse, his current spouse, and his sister. They all comment on an injury that led to the loss of his arm (according to one statement) or his hand (according to another). The authors also comment on his mental status and state of depression at the time.
10. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of that 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.
11. 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 members 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.
12. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides 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. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldiers separation specifically allows such characterization.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant contends that his under other than honorable conditions discharge should be upgraded.
2. The applicants record is void of the facts and circumstances that led to his discharge. However, his record contains a duly-constituted DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 8 September 1976 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of a court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions character of service.
3. The issuance of a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 10, required the applicant to have voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, request discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. It is presumed that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The applicant has provided no evidence that would indicate the contrary. Further, it is presumed that the applicants discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service during his last enlistment.
4. The applicant's circumstances regarding the alleged injury and/or depression -albeit unsubstantiated - at the time are noted. However, they are not sufficiently mitigating in granting him the requested relief. There would have been many other avenues he could have addressed any medical or mental issues. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to grant the applicant 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) AR20110018624
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110018624
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006934
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. After his discharge from the Army, he served honorably in the U.S. Navy for 7 years. At the time the applicant voluntarily submitted his request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, he provided a lengthy written statement delineating all the reasons why he went AWOL, why he would go AWOL again, why he hated the Army, how the Army screwed up his life and created many personal problems for him, and why he wanted to be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005737
On 2 March 1976, the applicant surrendered to military authorities at Fort Sill, where charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 7 January to 2 March 1976. There is no indication in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations. The applicants contentions have been noted; however, he has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059237C070421
On 5 November 1976, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by court-martial and directed that he receive an UOTHC discharge. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue of limitations. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014440
Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness or unsuitability. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable or a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018131
The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to show he was honorably discharged due to medical conditions. He had completed 2 years, 4 months, and 19 days of active service that was characterized as under other than honorable conditions. In view of the above, there is an insufficient basis upon which to upgrade his discharge to an honorable discharge or a general discharge or to correct his record to show he was discharged for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050015793C070206
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant states that it has been 30 years since he was discharged and he has been punished enough. In his application to the Board, the applicant stated that after 30 years, he had been punished enough.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064347C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general or honorable discharge. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against them or of a lesser included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and they must indicate that they have been...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015479C071029
On 28 October 1977, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request and directed the applicant be furnished an Under Other than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005517
On 28 January 1976, the discharge authority approved the applicant's request and directed his discharge with an undesirable discharge. 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 applicants request that his discharge should be upgraded was carefully considered and it was determined that it lacks sufficient evidence to support the request.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140009163
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. 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. He completed 15 days of active service that was characterized as under conditions other than honorable.