Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120012071
Original file (20120012071.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  5 February 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120012071 


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 discharge.

2.  He states he received a general discharge when he was discharged at Oakland, CA.  The following year he submitted his discharge document when he applied for a job, but it was returned as an undesirable discharge.

3.  He provides no additional 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 25 May 1962 and he was honorably discharged on 26 April 1968 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.
3.  He reenlisted on 27 April 1968 for a period of 6 years.

4.  His discharge packet is not available for review.  However, his record contains a DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) that shows he was discharged under conditions other than honorable on 3 August 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial court-martial with issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He completed 5 years, 3 months, and 7 days of active military service during the period under review.

5.  His service record does not indicate he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

6.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  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, the type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of Veterans Administration benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge.  An Undesirable Discharge Certificate would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7b states 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 contends he received a general discharge when he was discharged at Oakland, CA.  However, his service record is void of evidence which supports his claim.

2.  The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge.  It appears that he was charged with the commission of an offense(s) punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice 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.  The applicant is presumed to have voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In doing so, he waived his opportunity to appear before a court-martial.  It is also presumed that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Furthermore, in the absence of evidence showing otherwise, it must be presumed that his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service during this period.

3.  Therefore, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for upgrading the applicant’s 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 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)                                         AR20120012071



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120012071



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021885

    Original file (20130021885.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. In that statement he indicated: * he had been working to help support his mother and two little brothers prior to his being drafted in May 1971 * his mother passed away from cancer and he went into the Army * he went to Fort Ord for advanced individual training and got married in July 1971 * he then went to the Oakland Replacement Station where he went AWOL on 22 October 1971 * he was returned to Fort...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005433

    Original file (20120005433.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant's DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he was discharged on 6 October 1976 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with his service characterized as under other than honorable conditions. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130001343

    Original file (20130001343.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions. However, his records include: a. a memorandum from Headquarters, U.S. Army Personnel Center, Oakland, CA, dated 16 April 1970, subject: Review of Discharge (Applicant), showing he acknowledged he was being issued an undesirable discharge and his right to request a review of his discharge by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB); and b. a properly-constituted DD Form 214 showing he was discharged under...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120000982

    Original file (20120000982.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In his statement, he stated he was requesting a discharge for the good of the service because he had nothing but trouble while he was in Vietnam. The commander stated a careful review of the applicant's record in conjunction with his negative attitude toward honorable service indicated the best interests of the Army would be served if the applicant's discharge request was approved. On 14 December 1971, the separation authority approved his request for discharge under the provisions of Army...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001265

    Original file (20110001265.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to a fully honorable discharge. On 21 July 1971, his command preferred court-martial charges against him for one specification of being AWOL from 1 February to 16 July 1971. _______ _ _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 | CY2010 | 20100021395

    Original file (20100021395.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge. In his request for discharge, he acknowledged he understood that if the discharge request was approved, he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The evidence of record shows the applicant was 18 years of age at the time he enlisted and committed his offense; however, there is no evidence to indicate he was any less mature than other...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021565

    Original file (20130021565.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 4 May 1972, his command preferred court-martial charges against him for one specification of being AWOL from 8 December 1971 to 1 May 1972. On 16 May 1972, the applicant was accordingly discharged. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, at the time, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012948

    Original file (20130012948.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was an only child and his family members wrote to their Congressional representative trying to get him out of Vietnam. However, his records do show he submitted a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, on 18 January 1971. Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100029639

    Original file (20100029639.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. On 16 July 1974, he voluntarily requested a 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. The evidence of record shows the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 on 10 September 1974.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009848

    Original file (20130009848.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 15 March 1972, the separation authority approved the discharge action and ordered the applicant reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with an undesirable discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 16 March 1972. The applicant's request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge was carefully considered; however, there is insufficient evidence to support his request.