IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 8 November 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120009108
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 he was told his discharge would be upgraded to an honorable discharge after 7 years.
3. The applicant does not provide any evidence to substantiate his case.
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 record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on
28 September 1987. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 45B (Small Arms Repairer). The highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was specialist/E-4.
3. The applicant's discharge packet is not available. However his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 2 June 1992 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10, for the good of the service with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. He completed 4 years, 8 months, and 5 days of creditable active military service.
4. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge, could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial charges were preferred,. Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service. Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses charged, type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of Department of Veterans Affairs benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge. A discharge under other than honorable conditions would normally be given an individual who was discharged for the good of the Service.
5. 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.
6. 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 contention that he was told his discharge would be upgraded after 7 years was carefully considered; however, there is insufficient evidence to support his contention.
2. Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. Although the applicant's discharge packet is not available it is presumed all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.
3. Based on the applicant's record of indiscipline, his service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. This misconduct also renders his service unsatisfactory. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to either an honorable or a general discharge.
4. The U.S. Army has never had a policy where a discharge was automatically upgraded. Every case is individually decided based upon its merits when an applicant requests a change in the discharge. The ABCMR will grant changes if it is determined that either the characterization of service or the reason for discharge was improper or inequitable or both.
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) AR20120009108
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120009108
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110008307
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests his discharge be upgraded to honorable (HD). The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130005729
It also shows he was discharged 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, with his service characterized as under other than honorable conditions. The ADRB indicated the upgrade was based on the fact that the applicant had excellent service with no other record of indiscipline up until he committed the offense for which he requested discharge in lieu of trial by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018899
The record also contains a properly-constituted DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 19 November 1975 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with an undesirable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was only 17 years old at the time of his enlistment into the U.S. Army.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007813
There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. A punitive discharge is authorized for offenses under Article 86 for AWOL over 30 days. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016488
There is no record the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a discharge upgrade during that board's 15-year statute of limitations. The applicant requests a discharge upgrade. The applicant's separation packet is not available for review; however, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100000280
The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge. The applicant's DD Form 214 confirms 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. In view of the fact the applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in him receiving a punitive discharge, his overall record of undistinguished service did not support the issuance...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017856
There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15 year statute of limitations. The applicants DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial. Absent evidence to the contrary, the applicant's UOTHC discharge is appropriate and the evidence does not support an upgrade to a GD or an HD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000822
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request for a discharge upgrade to either a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014336
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general under honorable conditions discharge. Records show the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice on 4 October 1969 for failing to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty. Even though the applicant's records do not contain his discharge packet, the evidence indicates he was voluntarily discharged under the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016193
The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 October 1976. At the time, a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate. Even though the applicant's records do not contain his discharge packet, the evidence indicates he was voluntarily discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 in lieu of trial by court-martial.