IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 14 November 2013
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130005708
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, in effect, an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable or a general discharge.
2. The applicant states:
a. He had a contract dispute with the Army.
b. He was promised the rank of sergeant (E-5) when he completed his training; however, halfway through the training the government froze all pay and rank.
c. A contract where one party can change the conditions without the other party's consent is no contract at all regardless of the fine print.
d. When he contested the freeze, he was laughed at so he told "them" as far as he was concerned the contract was void. He received more laughter so he left and went home.
e. A few weeks later, he was arrested and then taken to Fort Ord, California, where he was jailed.
f. He was told by a lawyer that if he wanted to get out of the military he should sign a form and write on it "I hate the Army."
g. He told the lawyer he did not hate the Army and he explained the reason why he felt he had been wronged.
h. He was told that if he did not sign the form he would sit in jail for a year waiting for a court-martial.
i. He signed the form under duress and he was released.
j. While he was in the Army he was laughed at, told he had an attitude, ordered to shovel snow, and whatever he said was spun to its worst possible connotation and thrown back in his face.
k. He believes that the events contributed to him finally signing the lawyer's forms because he was young and stressed out.
3. The applicant provides a self-authored, unsigned statement.
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 Army on 2 December 1971, in pay grade (E-1). He completed training as a medical corpsman. He was promoted to pay grade (E-2) on 15 February 1972 and he was promoted to pay grade E-3 on 30 June 1972.
3. The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not available for review. His DD Form 214 shows 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. He completed 1 year, 3 months, and 11 days of net active service this period. He had 195 days of lost time due to being absent
without leave (AWOL) from 22 January through 25 January 1973 and from 5 February through 14 August 1973. He received an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
4. A review of the available records fails to show any contract between the applicant and the Army stating that he was be promoted to sergeant (E-5) upon completion of his training.
5. His records do not show that he ever petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within the board's 15-year statute of limitations.
6. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
a. Chapter 10 states 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, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate at the time of the applicants discharge.
b. Paragraph 3-7a states 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 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 applicants contentions have been noted. His supporting statement has been considered.
2. There is no evidence in the available record, nor has the applicant submitted any evidence showing that he had a contract with Army officials to be promoted to sergeant (E-5) after he completed training.
3. As previously stated, the facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not available for review. The available evidence suggests that he had two periods of AWOL for a total of 195 days. Once charges were pending against, he submitted a request to be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
4. Based on the available evidence, the character of the applicant's discharge appropriately reflects his overall record service.
5. In view of the foregoing, the applicants request should be denied.
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) AR20130005708
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130005708
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000959
This lawyer was informed that the applicant desired to submit a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10 (Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial), Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel). On 20 July 1976, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 and understood that he could request discharge for the good of the service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063178C070421
The applicant’s military records show that he was inducted into the Army of the United States and entered active duty on 13 March 1968. Although the Board finds the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable at the time, after considering his entire record of service, including his combat service in the RVN, which resulted in his being awarded the CIB and Purple Heart, and his excellent post service conduct; the Board concludes that he has been sufficiently penalized for his misconduct...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003700
The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily 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. The applicant stated he was drafted prior to his 26th birthday and he spent 5 years in the Merchant Marines and 3 years in Vietnam.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005605
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general or an honorable discharge. On 11 May 1973, the applicant's commander recommended that the applicant be discharged from the Army with an undesirable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007311
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge. On 29 October 1973, the applicant was returned to military authorities and on 13 November 1973 court-martial charges were preferred against him for being AWOL from on or about 2 July 1973 to on or about 29 October 1973. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140009930
The separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), currently in effect, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070014966
On 4 April 1973, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with an undesirable discharge and a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. There is no evidence of record to show that the applicant asked for psychiatric help at any time before he was told he had to reenlist in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070014966
On 4 April 1973, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with an undesirable discharge and a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. There is no evidence of record to show that the applicant asked for psychiatric help at any time before he was told he had to reenlist in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070017557
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be changed to an honorable discharge. On 6 August 1973, the applicant was discharged from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service with an undesirable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011209
She states that she was told the general discharge would be upgraded to honorable in a couple of years. On 20 February 1976, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10. On 25 February 1976, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that she be furnished an undesirable discharge.