IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 4 February 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130009269
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 to general under honorable conditions. He also disputes the following periods of unauthorized absence:
* 5-8 February 1977
* 2-4 June 1978
* 6-8 June 1978
2. The applicant states:
a. In 1978 while stationed in Germany, he received word of an emergency at home. His mother had been involved in an accident. She was seriously injured and hospitalized and another family member was killed. His request for emergency leave was denied.
b. He was scheduled to be off duty for a few days and went home to see his mother at his own expense. It was never his intent to be absent without leave (AWOL), but he lacked the money to return to Germany and was declared AWOL.
c. Once back to Germany his commander told him he could be released with a less than honorable discharge and after 6 months it would be changed to a general discharge. This change never happened.
d. While serving in Germany he was injured due to an explosion. He was out with friends when a bomb exploded injuring his right leg. He returned to his base and shrapnel pieces were removed from his leg. The dressing was changed daily for about 3 weeks. Occasionally he experiences "flare-ups" from this injury.
3. The applicant provides a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated 9 May 2013.
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 June 1976. He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 19E (Armor Crewman).
3. He was assigned to units at Fort Hood, Texas, and in Germany. The highest rank he attained was private first class/E-3.
4. Item 21 (Time Lost) of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record Part II) shows:
* 5-8 February 1977
* 2-4 June 1978
* 6-8 June 1978
* 11 August-8 September 1978
* 9 September-10 October 1978
5. His records show he accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice on eight occasions between 26 February 1977 and 18 October 1978.
6. On 9 November 1978, his immediate commander recommended his separation for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel) due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. The commander stated the applicant had been counseled on four occasions and had been AWOL much of the time since his rehabilitative transfer to his current to his unit. He also stated the applicant had a lackadaisical attitude and required constant supervision.
7. The applicant consulted with counsel and he waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived representation by counsel, and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
8. The battalion and brigade commanders each recommended approval of the discharge.
9. On 11 December 1978, the separation authority approved the separation action and directed the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, and issuance of a DD Form 794A (Discharge Certificate under Other Than Honorable Conditions).
10. The applicant's DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he was discharged on 11 January 1979 with his service characterized as under conditions other than honorable. He completed 2 years, 4 months, and 2 days of net active service during this period with 71 days of lost time.
11. In June 1988, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied his request for a change in the character and/or reason for discharge. The ADRB determined he was properly and equitably discharged.
12. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
a. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include a pattern of misconduct (consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline), commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.
b. 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.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant did not provide any evidence to support his assertions that his discharge would be changed to general in 6 months or that the disputed AWOL dates are not correct. The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.
2. The applicants record of misconduct clearly shows frequent incidents of a discreditable nature. His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
3. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
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) AR20110025102
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130009269
4
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003182C070206
All of the applicant's discharge processing documents were not available in his military service records. There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200, dated 15 July 1966 and with changes 1 through 45, was in effect at the time the applicant's separation processing was initiated in November 1977.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110013402
The applicant states three months into his assignment to Germany, he received information that his mother was ill. His unit granted him 30 days of emergency leave. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024766
He departed Germany on 30 November 1978 to serve his sentence to confinement in the States. His unit commander initiated action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-33b(1), for misconduct, due to frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002151
The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) he was issued at the time confirms he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 (chapter 13-5 had been renamed as chapter 14), for misconduct with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions. There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. ____________X___________ CHAIRPERSON I...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016441
On 4 April 1978, the applicants company commander recommended the applicant be discharged because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Separation), paragraph 14-33b(1). On 22 May 1978, the applicant's company commander stated that applicant had elected to have his case heard before a board of officers and requested personal appearance before that board. The separation authority approved the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003477
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. In his request for discharge, he acknowledged he understood if the discharge request were approved, he might be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged by reason of for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial with an under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066379C070402
On 6 November 1978, the separation authority approved the board of officers recommendation and directed that the applicant be discharged from the service for misconduct due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with a general discharge. In accordance with a recommendation from a board of officers, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct. The Board reviewed the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010821C071029
In the request the applicant submitted to the Board originally, he stated he was supposed to be discharged for medical reasons because of a back injury from a motorcycle accident, and that he was, at the time, trying to qualify for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits. A copy of a DA Form 31, Request and Authority for Leave, in the applicant's service record shows he was allowed to go on excess leave pending approval of his request for discharge in lieu of trial by court- martial. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024844
However, his record contains: a. A DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 18 August 1980 as a private (PV1)/E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-33b(1), for misconduct frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities, with an under other than honorable conditions character of service. However, his record contains a DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 18 August 1980 under the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026504
The applicant requests his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions. On 26 June 1978, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of misconduct - frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities with his service characterized as under other than honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general...