Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120019299
Original file (20120019299.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    16 May 2013 

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120019299 


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 completed several years of good service but only made one mistake. 

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's records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 May 1981 and he held military occupational specialty 76C (Equipment Records and Parts Specialist).  
3.  He was promoted through the ranks to specialist four/E-4 in August 1983 and also reenlisted on 28 November 1983.  Furthermore, he served in Berlin, Germany, from on or about 26 July 1984 to on or about 24 March 1986.  

4.  He was awarded or authorized the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle and Grenade Bars, Army Service Ribbon, Army of Occupation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, and the Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon. 

5.  On 23 December 1985, subsequent to a positive urinalysis and/or an investigation, special court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for one specification of wrongfully using marijuana during the period 15 August through 14 September 1985.  

6.  On 11 March 1986, the applicant 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 or dishonorable discharge, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the possible effects of a request for discharge, and the procedures and rights available to him.  Following consultation with legal counsel, he requested discharge 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.  In his request for discharge, he acknowledged:

	a.  he was making this request of his own free will and had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person;

	b.  he understood by requesting a discharge he was admitting guilt to the charges against him or of lesser-included offenses that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a dishonorable discharge;

	c.  he acknowledged he understood if his discharge request were approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA), and he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws; and

	d.  he stated that under no circumstances did he desire further rehabilitation or to perform further military service.

7.  His chain of command recommended approval of the discharge action.  

8.  On 11 March 1986, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with a discharge under other than honorable conditions and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.  On 26 March 1986, the applicant was discharged accordingly.

9.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  He completed 4 years, 10 months, and 1 day of creditable active service.

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

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 provides 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.

	a.  Paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  It 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's record shows he was charged with the commission of 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.  He 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.  

2.  The applicant's years of service are noted.  However, he violated the UCMJ and he was given a choice.  He was advised of his rights and chose discharge in lieu of a court-martial that could have adjudged a bad conduct discharge or a dishonorable discharge.  He could have elected trial by a court-martial if he believed he was innocent of the charge.

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.  His misconduct rendered his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, there is no basis for upgrading 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)                                         AR20120019299





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120019299



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100024300

    Original file (20100024300.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 15 August 1986, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged for the good of the service - in lieu of trial court-martial with a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110013139

    Original file (20110013139.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 14 November 1986, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge 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 and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time shows he was discharged for the good of the service - in lieu of a court-martial with a characterization of service of under other...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002466

    Original file (20120002466.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In his request for discharge, he acknowledged he understood by requesting a 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 dishonorable discharge. On 8 April 1986, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140020969

    Original file (20140020969.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Following consultation with legal counsel, he requested discharge 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. On 9 April 1987, consistent with the chain of command's recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110006317

    Original file (20110006317.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 16 October 1986, the Commanding General ordered that the letter of reprimand be filed in the performance portion of his Official Military Personnel File. The characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally UOTHC and the evidence shows that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting 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 | CY2014 | 20140006873

    Original file (20140006873.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Following a legal review and consistent with the chain of command's recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with a discharge under other than honorable conditions and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002350

    Original file (20150002350.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate. The applicant's request for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge was carefully considered; however, there was insufficient evidence to support his request.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020977

    Original file (20100020977.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 14 May 1986, he consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10 due to charges being preferred against him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018817

    Original file (20140018817.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 11 July 1986, consistent with the chain of command's recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge 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 and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under the provisions of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019767

    Original file (20110019767.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge. On 5 August 1986, the CG approved his request and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions.