Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014643
Original file (20130014643.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  15 April 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130014643


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 discharge from an under other than honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, the circumstances that led to his discharge resulted from family struggles, thoughts of death and suicide, his pregnant girlfriend, and his mother's health issues.  He states he served his time respectfully as an outstanding Soldier.  He protected his country and he'd like his country to protect him.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of his request.

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 20 September 1990.  He completed his initial entry training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13B (Cannon Crewmember).  

3.  On or about 3 October 1991, he was reassigned to Battery C, 2nd Battalion, 17th Field Artillery Regiment, Fort Sill, OK.

4.  On 1 May 1993, he was promoted to the rank/grade of specialist/E-4.

5.  On 1 July 1993, his unit reported him absent without leave (AWOL).  

6.  On 31 July 1993, he was dropped from the rolls of the Army.

7.  On 10 August 1993, he surrendered to military authorities at Fort Benjamin Harrison, IN.  Following his return to military authority, he was assigned to the Special Processing Company, U.S. Army Personnel Control Facility, U.S. Army Armor Center, Fort Knox, KY.   

8.  On 16 August 1993, court-martial charges were preferred against him for being AWOL from on or about 1 July to 10 August 1993, in violation of Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

9.  On 16 August 1993, he consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, he 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.

10.  In his request for discharge, he acknowledged he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He further acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request was approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

11.  On 18 November 1993, the separation authority approved his request for discharge and directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  

12.  On 14 January 1994, he was discharged from the Army, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in the rank/grade of private/E-1.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he completed 3 years, 2 months, and 16 days of net active service during this period of active duty, and he had lost time from 1 July through
9 August 1993.  

13.  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.

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

   a. Chapter 10 provides 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.

   b. 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.

   c. 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 for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge was carefully considered; however, there is insufficient evidence to support his request.
2.  His record shows he was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.  Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.

3.  The available evidence shows he was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time.  There is no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  All requirements of law and regulation were met, and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  His discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.

4.  Based on his extended period of lost time, his service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct also rendered his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable 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)                                         AR20100014558



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130014643



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130010871

    Original file (20130010871.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 9 March 1993, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and he was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial for an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or a dishonorable discharge, the possible effects...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020641

    Original file (20090020641.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states that his discharge should be upgraded because: * he fulfilled his 2-year enlistment obligation * he served his country dutifully and honorably * circumstances that were not military issues caused him to go absent without leave (AWOL) and unfortunately a chapter 10 discharge 3. The record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 which shows the applicant was discharged on 16 April 1993 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations -...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006592

    Original file (20090006592.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). The record shows that after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008957

    Original file (20090008957.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 6 May 1993, the applicant was discharged accordingly. There is no evidence showing the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. As a result, his overall record of service did not support the issue of a GD by the separation authority at the time of his discharge nor does it support an upgrade of his discharge at this time.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110005325

    Original file (20110005325.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. The applicant's request for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge was carefully considered; however, there is insufficient evidence to support his request. ___________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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080015841

    Original file (20080015841.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 02 December 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080015841 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued at the time shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020919

    Original file (20130020919.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 18 February 1993, the separation authority approved his request for discharge and directed the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions. His DD Form 214 confirms he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial and his service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions. The regulation directed that the purpose of the separation document is to provide the separating service member with...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015243

    Original file (20090015243.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charges against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a discharge under other honorable conditions. 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 applicant's contentions that his...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010263

    Original file (20090010263.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general discharge (GD), under honorable conditions or to a fully honorable discharge (HD). On 19 February 1993, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, and directed that he receive a UOTHC discharge. The evidence of record further shows the applicant voluntarily requested discharge...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100000440

    Original file (20100000440.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued 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 with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. ___________x____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the...