IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 10 October 2013
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130003865
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 upgrade of his discharge.
2. The applicant states:
* he was wrong for using disrespectful language toward a noncommissioned officer (NCO) and not being at his appointed place of duty
* his daughter was sick and he went to see about her
* he does not recall the marijuana charge, but does recall his hashish charge
* if he could turn back the hands of time these things would not have happened, but he was young and stupid
3. The applicant provided:
* his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* three DA Forms 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ))
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 25 January 1971 at the age of 18 years, 5 months, and 28 days.
3. He submitted and his record contains three DA Forms 2627, which show he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 on:
* 15 February 1972 for being disrespectful in language to an NCO
* 11 August 1972 for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 5 August to
9 August 1972
* 8 December 1972 for having in his possession marijuana and hashish
4. The DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 28 January 1974 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 2, for completion of his required active duty service with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he completed a total of 3 years of active service and had 4 days of time lost.
5. 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.
6. He submitted a note from the Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System which explained the eligibility requirements for his retirement.
7. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel, 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 members service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added) or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.
8. 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. His service record shows he received three Article 15s. The evidence of record shows a total of 4 days of lost time. As a result, his record of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel to receive an honorable discharge.
2. There is no evidence that indicates his sick daughter contributed to his acts of misbehavior or misconduct. In fact, he was given his first NJP for using disrespectful language to an NCO 6 months prior to his AWOL.
3. In view of the above, there is no basis for granting him relief.
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) AR20130003865
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130003865
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001039
On 19 January 1973, charges were preferred against him for the following offenses: * on or about 14 December 1972, for absenting himself from his place of duty * on or about 15 December 1972, for dereliction of duty * on or about 19 December 1972, for leaving his appointed place of duty without authority * on or about 20 December 1972, for using disrespectful behavior towards a superior commissioned officer * on or about 20 December 1972, for disobeying a lawful order * on or about 18...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009777
He acknowledged he understood that he could request discharge for the good of the Service because court-martial charges had been preferred against him under the UCMJ which authorized the imposition of a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge. Accordingly, he was discharged on 2 May 1979. His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service and received an under other than...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014241
When separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record. Paragraph 2-10 states, in pertinent part, to issue a DD Form 257A (General Discharge Certificate) appropriately to all Soldiers receiving a general discharge. While the applicants command determined that he should be issued a general discharge, based on his extensive record of indiscipline in less than 18 months,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021193
Accordingly, he was discharged on 30 May 1973. On 7 August 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board, after careful consideration of his military records and all other available evidence determined he was properly discharged and denied his request for an upgrade. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate at the time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013731
The applicant requests removal of a record of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and any related negative documentation from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) (formerly known as the Official Military Personnel File). 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020811
The applicant requests removal of a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The DA Form 2627 with continuation sheet shows: * on 15 May 2008 he willfully disobeyed a lawful command from a senior commissioned officer * on 16 May 2008 he failed to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty * on 6 July 2008 he willfully disobeyed a lawful order from a senior NCO * on18...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010408
On 27 October 1988, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct and that he be issued an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The evidence of record shows that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007284
The applicant's military service records contain a copy of a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice]), dated 22 February 1983. The lieutenant colonel serving as Commander, 17th Signal Battalion (Germany), concurred with the company commanders recommendation and recommended the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, and issued a General Discharge Certificate. The applicant contends, in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005700
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge. His records do not specifically state the punishment imposed against him for being AWOL. However, the available records show that he was discharged on 1 June 1972 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003594C070208
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. However, records show that the applicant was 18 years old at the time his active service began and 21 years, 8 months at the time of his discharge. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the...