Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022958
Original file (20120022958.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE: 18 July 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120022958 


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 (UOTHC) to honorable.

2.  The applicant states that his life has changed and a discharge upgrade would help him get more out of it.

	a.  The whole situation was a misunderstanding on behalf of both parties involved.  On 21 March 1982, the 68th Transportation Group First Sergeant said he disobeyed an order to suit up in the field.  At the time this happened he was going to permanently transfer from Germany to the United States and his German wife was already there.

	b.  After raising a family in Germany from 1983-1999 and being in the United States for 14 years, he feels an honorable discharge would enable him to get a better job so he could provide more help to his aging mother.

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 28 October 1977.  He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63B (Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).

3.  His records show he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice on 14 July 1982 for two incidents of failing to go to his prescribed place of duty.

4.  The applicant's discharge packet is not available for review.  However, his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he was administratively discharged UOTHC on 10 November 1982 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10.  He completed 4 years, 10 months, and 10 days of total active duty service with lost time from 25 August to 25 October 1982.

5.  There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

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

	a.  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 UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

	b.  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.

	c.  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.

7.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR.  Paragraph 2-9 states the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not available for review.

2.  His DD Form 214 shows he was administratively discharged UOTHC in lieu of trial by court-martial.

3.  The regulation governing the Board's operation requires that the discharge process be presumed to have been in accordance with applicable laws and regulations unless the applicant can provide evidence to overcome that presumption.

4.  The applicant has not shown error, injustice, or inequity to justify the relief he requests.  Therefore, he is not entitled to a general or an honorable 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)                                         AR20110020828



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120022958



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016743

    Original file (20130016743.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides: a. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC was considered appropriate at the time. The applicant's character reference letters and the certificates he provided showing his accomplishments since his discharge were all reviewed; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001126

    Original file (20140001126.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. 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. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004232

    Original file (20120004232.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 11 February 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed he be issued a UOTHC discharge. Given the voluntary nature of his discharge request and his undistinguished overall record of service, the UOTHC discharge he received accurately reflects the overall qualify of his service which did not support the issue of an HD or GD by the separation...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012244

    Original file (20140012244.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests correction of his military records to show his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge upgraded. The applicant contends that his military records should be corrected to show his UOTHC discharge upgraded because he was young, had other prior commitments, and intended to return to his unit.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016074

    Original file (20140016074.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. There is no evidence that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. _______ _ _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 | CY2012 | 20120022045

    Original file (20120022045.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of his application. He had over 9 years experience in the Army at the time he went AWOL.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070006959C071029

    Original file (20070006959C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Qawiy A. Sabree | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 18 November 1981, the applicant was honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020999

    Original file (20110020999.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's military record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army in pay grade E-3 on 26 April 1979 for 3 years. He was discharged in pay grade E-1 on 6 March 1980 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for conduct triable by court-martial. On 26 May 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110022826

    Original file (20110022826.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded. The applicant states his discharge was too harsh because he had a good military record and was an alcoholic at the time. On 8 April 1985, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022884

    Original file (20120022884.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. He is not Sherlock Holmes, but given the conduct of the company clerk and his commander – calling each other by first names, her never receiving any admonishment for screwing up the duty roster or other duties when anyone else would have been court-martialed and never pulling extra duty, and her being promoted without appearing before a promotion board – is very telling. On 19 December 1990, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB)...