Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008115
Original file (20120008115.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	 

		BOARD DATE:	  15 November 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120008115 


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 his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant does not provide an explanation. 

3.  The applicant provides no documentary 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 September 1978 for a period of 3 years.  He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13E (cannon fire direction specialist).

3.  He was absent without leave (AWOL) from 4 January 1979 to 6 February 1979.  Charges were preferred against the applicant for this AWOL period on 
12 February 1979.

4.  On 14 February 1979, he consulted with counsel and requested 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.  He acknowledged that by submitting his request for discharge he was guilty of a charge against him that authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He indicated in his request he understood he might be discharged under other than honorable conditions, he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, he might be deprived of many or all Army benefits, and he might be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  He acknowledged he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  He elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.

5.  On 11 April 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge and directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

6.  On 19 April 1979, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He completed 5 months and 21 days of creditable active service with 33 days of lost time.

7.  There is no evidence that shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  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 under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

9.  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.

10.  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 brief record of service included 33 days of lost time.  As a result, his record 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 insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable or a general discharge.

2.  His voluntary request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  He had an opportunity to submit a statement in which he could have voiced his concerns and he elected not to do so.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were therefore 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)                                         AR20120008115





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120008115



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009885

    Original file (20100009885.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 7 March 1980, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed his separation with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 16 November 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request for an honorable discharge. The applicant's record of service included one nonjudicial punishment, serious offenses for which court-martial charges were preferred, and 58 days of time lost.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013002

    Original file (20090013002.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded. On 14 April 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Since the applicant's record of service included three nonjudicial punishments and serious offenses for which special court-martial charges were preferred, his record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000582

    Original file (20140000582.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    (1) He acknowledged he was guilty of both periods of AWOL for which he was charged. However, he requested the separation authority "take into consideration [his] two and a half years of good service in deciding whether [he] should receive a general discharge under honorable conditions rather than a discharge under other than honorable conditions." Thus, the applicant's record of service during the period under review did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110025079

    Original file (20110025079.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 12 July 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge and directed his discharge under other than honorable conditions. His records show he was almost 19 years of age when he enlisted in the Regular Army and he completed his training.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110022171

    Original file (20110022171.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 24 March 1987, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge and determined his discharge was proper and equitable. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The evidence of record confirms the applicant himself verified he went AWOL because he was on assignment to Germany, the Army didn't pay enough, he didn't like being told what to do, and he would go AWOL...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024439

    Original file (20110024439.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded. On 29 July 1986, he consulted with counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. 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 | CY2013 | 20130014292

    Original file (20130014292.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. In his request for discharge, he acknowledged he understood if the discharge request were approved, he might be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008885

    Original file (20130008885.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 24 April 1980, the separation authority approved his request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service and directed the issuance of an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. On 15 May 1980, he was discharged accordingly. On 22 July 1988, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge and determined his discharge was both proper and appropriate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120000908

    Original file (20120000908.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 5 October 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge and directed his discharge under other than honorable conditions. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. _______ _ _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 | 20110004428

    Original file (20110004428.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests, in effect, upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. On 9 October 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed he be given 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 its 15-year statute of limitations.