Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007902
Original file (20120007902.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		

		BOARD DATE:	  9 October 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120007902 


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 under other than honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states he was discharged for getting frostbite on his two big toes and the baby toe on the left foot during a training exercise in Germany. 

3.  The applicant did 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 records show he initially enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 14 September 1973.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 63B (Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).  

3.  He served in Korea from May 1974 to May 1975 and he was honorably released from active duty on 12 September 1975.  He completed 2 years of creditable active service.  His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he was awarded or authorized the:

* National Defense Service Medal
* Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal
* Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar

4.  He enlisted in the RA for 4 years on 12 October 1976 and he held MOS 64C (Motor Transport Operator) and 11B (Infantryman).  He served in Italy from       23 February 1977 to 11 April 1978 and Germany from 12 April 1978 to on or about 16 August 1979.

5.  In September 1977, he was recommended for permanent removal from the Personnel Reliability Program based on behavioral aberration (drinking, damaging government property, public intoxication, exposing himself in public, being prone to depression, being a security risk, and poor assimilation of duties). The removal from the PRP was ultimately approved by the appropriate authority.

6.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice on 3 April 1979 for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.

7.  On 8 May 1979, he was apprehended by the Erlangen Military Police after a source revealed that he (the applicant) revealed to another Soldier that he knew there was a bomb in the barracks and the room it was in but was refusing to tell.  He was released shortly thereafter due to a lack of credible information.

8.  The complete facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not available for review with this case.  However, his record contains:

	a.  Orders 229-231, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Center and Fort Dix, Fort Dix, NJ, on 17 August 1979, ordering his discharge from the service on that date. 

	b.  A letter, dated 17 August 1979 , addressed from Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Center and Fort Dix, Fort Dix, NJ, notifying him of the reason for his separation as "Misconduct Frequent Incidents of a Discreditable Nature with Civil or Military Authorities." 
	c.  A properly-constituted DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 17 August 1979 under the provisions of paragraph 14-33b of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), for misconduct (Frequent Involvement in Incidents of a Discreditable Nature with Civil or Military Authorities) in the rank/grade of private/E-1 with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service.  This form also shows he completed 2 years, 10 months, and 6 days of creditable active service during this period. 

9.  There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories included frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities; an established pattern for shirking, an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts, and an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to contribute adequate support to dependents.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged for acts or patterns of misconduct.  

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 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. 

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.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances that led to his discharge.  However, his record contains a properly-constituted DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 17 August 1979 under the provisions of paragraph 14-33b of Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

2.  Absent evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that all requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  It is also presumed that his discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  

3.  The applicant's contention that he was discharged due to frostbite is not supported by any evidence.  

4.  The available evidence shows a military career marred with misconduct that included one instance of NJP and a permanent removal from the PRP for various infractions.   As a result, his record of service was not satisfactory and is insufficiently meritorious to warrant upgrading his discharge to either a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge.  Therefore, he is not entitled to 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)                                         AR20120007902





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120007902



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021523

    Original file (20090021523.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    While the applicant claims he has honorably served in civilian life since his discharge, that in itself is not mitigating on the period of service in question or the misconduct which served as the basis for upgrading his under other than honorable conditions discharge. _________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)...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120013667

    Original file (20120013667.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 13 May 1980, his immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, for misconduct - frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33b, by reason of misconduct - frequent involvement in incidents...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021869

    Original file (20130021869.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 27 May 1982, NJP was imposed against him for being AWOL from 2 - 6 May 1982. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Therefore, in the absence of evidence showing an error or injustice occurred in his case, there appears to be no basis for granting an honorable or a general discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002896

    Original file (20130002896.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's unit commander recommended he be considered by a board of officers for separation from the service under the provisions of paragraph 14-33b of Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct – frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities – and an established pattern of shirking. On 14 June 1979, the applicant was informed that a board of officers had been directed to investigate his case to determine whether he should be discharged from the service...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130006609

    Original file (20130006609.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In a telephone conversation between the Commander, 81st FA, Germany, and a staff sergeant with USATRFPT, Fort Dix, NJ, the commander stated the applicant was being discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Records show that he was almost 24 years of age at the time of his offenses. _______ _X _______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009061

    Original file (20090009061.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 9 January 1980, the company commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action to effect his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Separations), chapter 14 (Misconduct), paragraph 14-33b(1), based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. On 29 January 1980, the battalion commander provided the separation authority in the applicant's case with a summary of the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090022C070212

    Original file (2003090022C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010252

    Original file (20120010252.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 5 September 1980, the separation authority approved the board's recommendation for discharge of the applicant and directed the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-33b, for misconduct based upon frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authority with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. While there is no evidence of record that shows the applicant was involved in any incidents of a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070000705

    Original file (20070000705.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-5-1, in effect at that time, prescribed the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated reasons. The regulation shows that the separation program...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000154

    Original file (20140000154.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 19 October 1979, the separation authority approved the recommendation that the applicant be discharged from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33b(1) for misconduct and issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. However, there is no evidence of record and he provided no evidence which shows he was diagnosed with a mental condition prior to his discharge. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious...