Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008175
Original file (20120008175.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

	

		BOARD DATE:	  13 November 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120008175 


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.

2.  The applicant states that at the time his life was threatened by black market individuals in his company. 

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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 December 1975 and he held military occupational specialty 19D (Armor Reconnaissance Specialist).  He was assigned to various units in the 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, TX.
3.  His records show he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on/for:

* 2 February 1977, being absent without leave (AWOL) from 11 to 12 January 1977
* 13 April 1978, being AWOL from 24 January to 20 February 1978

4.  On 19 April 1978, he departed his unit in an AWOL status and on the same date, he was dropped from the Army rolls as a deserter.  He surrendered to military authorities on 21 June 1978.

5.  On 9 May 1978, while he was AWOL, court-martial charges were preferred against him for one specification of the Charge and specification of missing movement through neglect, from Fort Hood to Germany. 

6.  On 27 June 1978, subsequent to his return to military control, court-martial charges were preferred against him for one specification of being AWOL from 19 April to 21 June 1978.

7.  On 28 June 1978, he consulted with legal counsel and he was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct discharge or a dishonorable discharge, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of a request for discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  Following consultation with legal counsel, he requested 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.   In his request for discharge he indicated that:

* he was making this request of his own free will and had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person
* he did not desire any further rehabilitation under any circumstances because he had no desire to perform further service
* he acknowledged he understood that by requesting discharge he was admitting guilt to the charges against him or of a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a discharge under other honorable conditions
* he acknowledged he understood that if the discharge request was approved he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration
* he acknowledged he understood he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law
8.  On 11 July 1978, his immediate and intermediate commanders recommended approval of the discharge with the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

9.  On 20 July 1978, consistent with the chain of command's recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for voluntary discharge for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by a court-martial in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and directed he receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and be reduced the lowest enlisted grade.  

10.  On 17 August 1978, the applicant was accordingly discharged.  The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) he was issued at the time shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by a court-martial with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions.  This form further confirms he completed 2 years, 4 months, and 25 days of active service and he had 92 days of lost time during this period of service.

11.  There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

12.  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, an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate.

	a.  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.

	b.  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 was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ 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.  

2.  The applicant voluntarily, willingly, and in writing requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.

3.  Based on his record of indiscipline, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct also renders his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge to either an honorable or a general 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 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)                                         AR20120008175





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120008175



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019032

    Original file (20110019032.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 26 April 1978, the applicant consulted with legal 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, chapter 10. On 8 May 1978, the approving authority accepted the applicant's request for discharge and directed his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with a UOTHC character of service. There is no record to show the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010791

    Original file (20120010791.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. Contrary to his argument that he requested a general discharge in agreement to no longer pursue action against his commanding officer, the evidence of record shows he was pending court-martial charges and instead of facing the charges, he elected the discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized with an administrative discharge under chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200, his...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003109

    Original file (20110003109.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 29 June 1978, subsequent to a legal review for sufficiency, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for voluntary discharge for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by a court-martial in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and directed he receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and be reduced the lowest enlisted grade. The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003477

    Original file (20110003477.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. 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. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged by reason of for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial with an under...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130001471

    Original file (20130001471.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 29 December 1978, consistent with the chain of command's recommendations and after a legal review for sufficiency, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for voluntary discharge for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by a court-martial in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and directed that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade with the issuance of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004556

    Original file (20120004556.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. 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. c. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003898

    Original file (20110003898.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial, with an 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710278

    Original file (9710278.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for AWOL from 22 November 1978 to 9 January 1980. On 15 January 1980 the appropriate authority approved his request and directed that he be discharged UOTHC. He was discharged UOTHC on 27 March 1980 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710278C070209

    Original file (9710278C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: The applicant was ordered to Active Duty on 5 June 1978 as an enlisted man in an Army Reserve status due to unsatisfactory performance in the Reserve. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020124

    Original file (20100020124.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 February 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100020124 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to a general discharge. Based on this record of indiscipline and in view of the fact he voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in a punitive discharge, his overall record of service did not support the issuance of a general discharge by the...