Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010856
Original file (20120010856.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		 

		BOARD DATE:	  27 November 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120010856


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 be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states he was tricked into signing the request for discharge even though the charges were dismissed.  

3.  The applicant provided no supporting 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 20 February 1976.  He completed the training requirements and was awarded military occupational specialty 62M (Rough Terrain Forklift Operator). The highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private/pay grade E-2.
3.  On 17 February 1977, charges were preferred against the applicant for the following:

* Operating a vehicle while under the influence of drugs and alcohol 
* Possession of a habit-forming drug 
* Transfer of a habit-forming drug

4.  On 19 April 1977, after consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10.  The applicant indicated in his request that he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions, that he may be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA), and that he may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  He also acknowledged that he understood that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.  The applicant elected not to submit a statement on his behalf.

5.  The appropriate authority approved his request for discharge.  Accordingly, on 22 July 1977 the charges against the applicant were dismissed.

6.  On 3 August 1977, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 chapter 10, for the good of the service with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

7.  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, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

8.  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.

9.  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 request that his discharge be changed to honorable was carefully considered and it was determined there is insufficient evidence to support this request.

2.  As a result of the approval of his request for discharge, the court-martial charges were dismissed and applicant was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  Discharges under this chapter are due to a voluntary request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.

3.  Based on the applicant’s record of indiscipline his service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  His conduct also rendered his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his 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)                                         AR20120010856



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                       AR20120010856



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130005564

    Original file (20130005564.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge to an honorable or a general discharge. On 23 January 1978, having been advised by legal counsel, he submitted a request for 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. _______ _ X ______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140004514

    Original file (20140004514.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge. Following counseling, the applicant submitted a voluntary written request for 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. On 3 February 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board disapproved the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024162

    Original file (20110024162.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions to a general discharge. There is no evidence in the available records to show he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070007165C080213

    Original file (20070007165C080213.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 29 October 1979, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with a discharge under other than honorable conditions. 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 at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110015861

    Original file (20110015861.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. However, his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he was discharged on 20 October 1970 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, with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions and issuance of an...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006624

    Original file (20080006624.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). He now requests that his UOTHC discharge be upgraded to a GD. On 19 September 1977, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge request and directed the applicant receive an UOTHC discharge and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007241

    Original file (20100007241.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, on 2 November 1977, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service (dated 20 October 1977) and directed his discharge under other than honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. ____________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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110005373

    Original file (20110005373.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, reconsideration of his earlier request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20090017377, on 1 April 2010. The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged for the good of the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016280

    Original file (20110016280.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 1 March 1973, the applicant submitted a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States) to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) requesting an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, at the time the applicant was discharged an undesirable discharge was...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088063C070403

    Original file (2003088063C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge for the good of the service on 17 June 1977 and directed issuance of a UOTHC discharge. However, the evidence of record shows that during a CID investigation, the applicant provided a written statement in which he admitted to the theft of a stolen vehicle.