Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130001854
Original file (20130001854.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    13 August 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130001854 


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 her discharge.

2.  The applicant states:

* She was a teenager at the time, making teenage decisions
* She has realized the wrong decisions she made years ago have impacted her life and the lives of her children
* She is remorseful for her actions and realizes she forfeited her privilege to serve her country

3.  The applicant did not provide any additional documentation.

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 4 February 1993 at the age of 19. She completed training requirements and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 63B, Light Wheel Vehicle Mechanic. The highest rank she attained while serving on active duty was Private First Class/pay grade E-3.

3.  On 10 June 1994, charges were preferred against the applicant for making false statements to U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command agents on two separate occasions and for writing several bad checks.  

4.  On 17 June 1994, after consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily submitted a request for 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.  The applicant indicated in her request that she understood she could be discharged under other than honorable conditions, that she may be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that she may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and that she may be deprived of her rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  She also acknowledged that she understood that she may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.  

5.  The appropriate authority approved her request and on 15 July 1994, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, under other than honorable conditions.  Records show she completed 1 year, 5 months, and 12 days on active duty.

6.  There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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

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.  The applicant’s request that her discharge be upgraded was carefully considered and it was determined there is insufficient evidence to support this request.

2.  The applicant was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  Discharges under this chapter are due to a voluntary request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects her overall record of service.

3.  Based on the applicant’s admission of making false statements and writing several bad checks, her service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Her conduct also rendered her service unsatisfactory.  

4.  Records show the applicant was 20 years of age at the time of her offenses.  However, there is no evidence that indicates the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.

5.  Based on the foregoing, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of her 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)                                         AR20130001854



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130001854



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110023463

    Original file (20110023463.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that her under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 18 November 1994, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and directed the issuance of an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. _______ _ X______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015162

    Original file (20140015162.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. His service record shows he received three Article 15s, was charged for being AWOL, and he had 77 days of lost time. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140015162 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140015162 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020598

    Original file (20090020598 .txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012513

    Original file (20060012513.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 10 September 1982, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the Service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 10 (Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial). She also understood that by submitting her request for discharge, she acknowledged that she was guilty of at least one of the charges against her or of a lesser-included offense, which also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. The...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013860

    Original file (20130013860.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In summary, she stated: * she went AWOL because she and her husband were promised to be stationed together which never happened * her husband was chaptered out of the Army * she married her husband to be with him * she left to be with him 5. On 22 August 1994, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge and directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. There is no evidence that shows the applicant applied to the Army...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140009599

    Original file (20140009599.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 January 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140009599 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 20 January 1990, he reenlisted for a period of 4 years. However, the applicant's record contains a DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 13 June 1994 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 with...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003724

    Original file (20090003724.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Chapter 10 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. 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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010933

    Original file (20060010933.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 2 November 1990 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of court-martial. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100023609

    Original file (20100023609.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states she would like to re-enter the military. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. The applicant has done well for herself in the years since her discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000920

    Original file (20130000920.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests her discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. In view of the above, there is insufficient substantive evidence on which to base an upgrade of her under other than honorable conditions discharge to a general discharge under honorable conditions.