IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 18 April 2013
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120018079
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 under other than honorable conditions to an honorable discharge.
2. The applicant states he was injured while serving on active duty and he needs to file for disability. He further states he served honorably for 6 years.
3. The applicant 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 22 January 1976. His records show he completed basic combat and advanced individual training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 36C (Wire Systems Installer/Operator).
3. On 21 January 1980, the applicant was honorably released from active duty for completion of required service and he was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (Reinforcement) to complete his service obligation.
4. On 14 May 1980, the applicant again enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years beginning in the rank/grade of sergeant/E-5.
5. His records show he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice on:
* 23 August 1982, for wrongfully possessing marijuana
* 19 March 1984, for possessing a ration control plate and official U.S. identification of another person without consent
* 19 March 1984, for attempting to wrongfully use a ration control plate and official U.S. identification of another person
6. The complete facts and circumstances of his discharge are not available for review with this case. However, his record contains a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) which shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial on 9 July 1984 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged in the rank/grade of private/E-1 and he completed a total of 4 years, 1 month, and 26 days of creditable active service during this period.
7. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an 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 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge was considered appropriate at the time the applicant was discharged.
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 request to upgrade his discharge under other than honorable conditions to an honorable discharge was carefully considered; however, there is insufficient evidence to support his request.
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 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 would have voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, he would have waived his opportunity to appear before a court-martial. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.
3. Notwithstanding the applicant's need to file for disability compensation, this argument alone is not a basis for upgrading a discharge. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to 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 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) AR20120018079
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120018079
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140005046
BOARD DATE: 16 October 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140005046 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his military records by upgrading his bad conduct discharge. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070016233
On 5 April 1977, the applicant reenlisted in the Army for 3 years, in the pay grade of E-4. There is no evidence in the available record, nor has the applicant submitted any evidence to support to his contention that he had an alcohol problem while he was in the Army and the fact that he now contends that he did is an insufficient justification for upgrading his discharge. In regard to the applicant's Request for Waiver, there is insufficient evidence to support the applicants request to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019484
On 9 June 1988, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. The DD Form 214 the applicant was issued shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a characterization of service of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003941
d. Chapter 10 provides 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 by court-martial. The decision to request the chapter 10 discharge was the applicant's. In his new argument, the applicant points to the statement in his original record of proceedings that states the decision authority...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001247C070206
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 06 OCTOBER 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050001247 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. On 23 February 1981, the applicant requested a discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of court-martial. Therefore, he is not entitled to an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001247C070206
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 06 OCTOBER 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050001247 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The application submitted in this case is dated 27 January 2005. On 23 February 1981, the applicant requested a discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040005037C070208
On 5 July 1985, the ADRB reviewed and denied the applicant's request for upgrade. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3-year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should commence on the date of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018887
The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to general. On 22 January 1992, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that his service be characterized as under other than honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022771
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 April 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100022771 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012603
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 14 February 1986, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed his discharge under other than honorable conditions. Based on his record of indiscipline, which included violations of the UCMJ that resulted in preferred court-martial charges and nonjudicial punishment, and in view of the fact that he voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a trial by...