IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 9 July 2013
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120022179
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 undesirable discharge.
2. The applicant states he damaged his hearing while in the service and he would like to receive some medical benefits.
3. The applicant provides no additional documents.
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 14 December 1972.
3. His record shows he accepted nonjudicial punishment for:
a. failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed, 7 June 1973; and
b. being absent without leave (AWOL) during the periods 14 September to
11 October 1973 and 13 to 18 March 1974.
4. His record contains a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 7 May 1974, which shows he was charged with one specification of being AWOL during the period 17 April to 7 May 1974.
5. The specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicants discharge processing are not available for review. However, the available evidence includes a properly-constituted DD Form 214 that contains the authority and reason for the applicants discharge. The DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 12 November 1974 under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of court-martial, with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he had a total of 175 days of lost time.
6. On 15 April 1975, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge.
7. 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 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 an individual who was discharged for the good of the Service.
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. Although the applicants record is void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge processing, it does contain a properly-constituted
DD Form 214 that identifies the authority, reason, and the characterization of his service.
2. His service record shows he received three Articles 15 and he was AWOL 175 days. As a result, his record of service was not satisfactory and he did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.
3. The ABCMR does not upgrade discharges solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible for benefits. Every case is individually decided based upon its merits when an applicant requests a discharge upgrade.
4. The available evidence is insufficient for granting the applicant's request.
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) AR20120022179
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120022179
4
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012702
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007388
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. Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. Records show that he was almost 18 years of age at the time of his offenses.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019905
The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge for the period ending 4 April 1974. On 25 January 1974, he was again reported AWOL from his assigned unit. However, the DD Form 214 he was issued for this period of service shows he was discharged on 4 April 1974, 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, in the rank of private...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110002665
The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. However, at the time the applicant was discharged an undesirable discharge was appropriate. The honorable characterization of service 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 of service would be clearly inappropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110012586
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 December 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110012586 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. However, his Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) proceedings indicate: * charges were preferred against the applicant for the AWOL period on 3 January 1974 * he consulted with counsel in reference to his request for discharge on 10 January 1974 * the separation authority approved the undesirable discharge on 1 March 1974 6. _______ _ _X______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021243
The applicant requests, in effect, his undesirable discharge (dated 20 November 1974) and discharge under other than honorable conditions (dated 16 September 1981) be upgraded to a general 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 Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090010900 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007496
The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge. However, the DD Form 214 he was issued for this period of service shows he was discharged on 25 October 1974, 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 (separation designator (SPD) code KFS), in the rank of private with an...
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 | CY2011 | 20110014803
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. The record does contain a properly-constituted DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) which shows he was discharged on 24 January 1974 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019194
There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 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. _______ _ 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...