IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 5 November 2013
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130003686
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 believes his discharge was in error or unjust.
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. On 20 May 1968, he was inducted into the Army of the United States. He was awarded military occupational specialty 36C (Lineman). The highest rank he held was private/pay grade E-2.
3. His records show he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, as follows:
* 14 August 1968 for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 11 to 14 August 1968
* 16 December 1968 for being disorderly on post
* 28 February 1969 for being AWOL from 17 January to 10 February 1969
4. A DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 26 August 1971, shows court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from the U.S. Army Overseas Replacement Station during the periods 17 January to 10 February 1969 and 7 April 1969 to 23 August 1971.
5. On 7 October 1971, the applicant voluntarily 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), chapter 10. He acknowledged he had not been subjected to coercion with respect to his request for discharge and he had been advised of the implications that were attached to his request.
a. He further acknowledged he understood that if his request for discharge was accepted he could be discharged under conditions other than honorable and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He acknowledged that he understood that as a result of the issuance of such a discharge, he would 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.
b. A statement on his own behalf is not available for review by the Board.
c. He acknowledged that prior to completing his request for discharge he had been afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel and was advised of the basis for his contemplated trial by court-martial under circumstances which could lead to a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, of the effects of his request for discharge, and the rights available to him. He waived his rights in conjunction with this consultation.
6. On 19 October 1971, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be given an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
7. On 4 November 1971, he was discharged for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, with his service characterized as under other than honorable conditions. He was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 9 months and 14 days of net active service with 491 days of time lost.
8. The applicant's records document no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.
9. There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
10. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
a. 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 VA 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 to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service.
b. An honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the members service generally met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization was clearly inappropriate.
c. A general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.
2. He voluntarily requested discharge from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, he waived his opportunity to appear before a court-martial. At the time, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate for Soldiers separated for the good of the service. All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.
3. He received nonjudicial punishment on three occasions, and he was charged with being AWOL from the U.S. Army Overseas Replacement Station. He had 491 days of time lost prior to his normal expiration term of service date. Based on this record of indiscipline, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. Therefore, he is not entitled to an upgrade of his 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) AR20130003686
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130003686
4
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008021
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,. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016774
On 18 November 1971, court-martial charges were preferred against him for one specifications of being AWOL from 19 January 1970 to 8 November 1971. He also acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request were approved, he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. While it is acknowledged that he was 17 years of age at the time he enlisted, the evidence of record shows he was 19 years of age when he went AWOL the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110005104
The applicant states: * he served honorably for over 3 years * his DD Form 214 showed he had lost time from February 1968 through November 1969 and he was in Vietnam at that time * he now realizes that being absent without leave (AWOL) was not the course he should have chosen 3. His records do not show that he ever petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge. __________X___________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013993
The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge. On 22 March 1971, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for these two periods of AWOL. On 8 March 1971, after consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) , chapter 10, discharge for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021689
The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge. On 2 July 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant's request and directed that he be separated 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 an undesirable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003507
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 2 July 1971, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel). On 16 August 1971, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110002761
The applicant states he was told that for the good of the service he would be given a general discharge under honorable conditions. He indicated in his request for discharge that he understood if his discharge request was approved he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The applicant contends he was discharged for the good of the service based on a back injury.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009035
The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge. On 4 August 1971, the applicant voluntarily 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), chapter 10. At the time, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate for Soldiers separated for the good of the service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014022
On 19 July 1971, 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 discharge or a discharge under other than honorable conditions; the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ; the possible effects of a request for discharge; and of the procedures and rights that were available to him. In his request for discharge, the applicant acknowledged he understood that if...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008974
Following consult with legal counsel, the applicant requested discharge 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. Therefore, he was requesting a discharge for the good of the service. On 31 January 1974 and 8 January 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge and determined his discharge was both proper and appropriate.