IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 13 November 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120007715
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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to honorable.
2. He states that his UOTHC discharge should be upgraded because he was sexually abused by a noncommissioned officer (NCO). He tried to get reassigned to another unit but was unable to do so and started having other problems. Today he knows that he should have reported the incident and that probably would have saved his career in the military. He was a young Solider and did not know of all the resources available. He was embarrassed to discuss the issue until recently. The incident has affected his whole life.
3. The applicant provides a:
* DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated 5 January 2012
* letter to the Veterans Service Officer, Ozark, Alabama
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 on 30 June 1970. He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 94B (Cook). He subsequently reclassified to MOS 76A (Supply Clerk). He was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas, and later to Dugway Proving Grounds, Dugway Utah.
3. His records show he accepted nonjudicial (NJP) punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on:
* 6 October 1970, for being absent from his place of duty
* 4 May 1971, for willfully disobeying a lawful order and two incidents of failing to go at the time prescribed to his place of duty
* 26 May 1971, for signing a false document, failing to obey a lawful order, and being disrespectful in language to an NCO
* 28 September 1971, for two incidents of failing to go at the time prescribed to his place of duty
* 31 March 1972, for failing to obey a lawful regulation and failing to go at the time prescribed to his place of duty
4. The applicant's discharge processing documentation is not available. However, his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he was administratively discharged on
16 June 1972 under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel). He was issued a UOTHC discharge. He had completed 1 year, 11 months, and 17 days of total active service.
5. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.
6. He provides a letter addressed to Mr. John L____, Veterans Service Officer, Ozark, Alabama, dated 7 January 2012. In the letter, his daughter describes how her father's life was affected due to his sexual assault when he was a young Army private. She indicates that he was always an "outcast" socially awkward and moody. He has a very short temper and never attended his children's social events. He told her that the Army had sent him to a psychiatrist, but something happened and he never saw the doctor. Since the "Penn State scandal" happened, her father told her of the sexual assault incident. She wrote the letter seeking professional counseling for him from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
7. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
a. Chapter 10 provides 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 UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.
b. 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.
c. 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.
8. 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. Paragraph 2-9 states 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 specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not available. His DD Form 214 shows he was administratively discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
2. There is no available evidence to substantiate the applicant's claim of sexual abuse or that he sought any assistance with the matter.
3. The regulations governing the Board's operation require that the discharge process must be presumed to have been in accordance with applicable law and regulations unless the applicant can provide evidence to overcome that presumption.
4. The applicant has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he requests. Therefore, the applicant not entitled to an honorable discharge.
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) AR20110020828
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120007715
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013655
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant provides copies of: * DA Form 597-3 (Army ROTC Scholarship Cadet Contract), dated 20 August 2007 * Alabama Uniform Incident/Offense Report, dated 13 August 2009, with statement * Statement by the applicant to ROTC Chain of Command, dated 8 March 2010 * Alabama Uniform Incident/Offense Report, dated 3 September 2010, with confidential address information sheet * Petition for Protection...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012492
After making allegations against the applicant, the alleged victim recanted, stating she lied; b. the board heard testimony from other sources the alleged victims high school counselor, a Texas Child Protective Services (CPS) case worker, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (USACIDC, also known as CID) investigators which was all based on the victims dubious allegations; c. the board ignored or gave little weight to the fact there was no forensic evidence linking the applicant to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058089C070420
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. APPLICANT STATES : That he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007991
The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show he received a medical or honorable discharge. The applicant's military records are not available for review. With respect to a medical discharge, there is no evidence in his records which indicates he was physically or mentally unfit at the time of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022520
d. A DD Form 214 that shows she was discharged on 19 March 1985 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct pattern of misconduct in the rank/grade of private/E-1 with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. However, her record contains a DD Form 214 that shows she was discharged on 19 March 1985 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b for misconduct pattern of misconduct with an under other...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050006317C070206
The application submitted in this case is dated 20 April 2005. On 13 March 2000, the CG, 77th RSC approved the findings and recommendations of the officer board of inquiry and forwarded the applicant’s case for final action to the Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR- PERSCOM) with a recommendation for a characterization of UOTHC, under Army Regulation 600-8-24. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to...
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.
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050009667
On 2 September 1988, the applicant was notified by his unit commander that he was initiating action to separate the applicant for misconduct, and recommending that the applicant receive an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge. He further noted that the applicant was appealing his civil conviction and that his discharge could not be executed until his conviction was final. The ASB recommended his UOTHC discharge based on his civil conviction for murder and the resultant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050006556C070206
The applicant provided a hand-written statement with his request for discharge. On 28 April 1975, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge to either a general discharge or an honorable discharge. The applicant contends his service was not dishonorable and that his discharge was the result of sexual trauma he experienced while in the service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 040004764C070208
In a 17 October 2002 memorandum to her commanding officer, Captain “B” (the applicant’s company commander) reported her findings of the informal investigation into the possible violation of Army Regulation 600-20, “Relationships between Soldiers of Different Ranks,” involving the applicant and the now Sergeant “C.” She interviewed and obtained sworn statements from Sergeant “C,” the applicant’s former company commander and first sergeant, the applicant’s replacement, Sergeant First Class...