BOARD DATE: 3 June 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130017802
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 the characterization of his release from active duty (REFRAD) be changed from under honorable conditions to honorable.
2. He states his under honorable conditions REFRAD was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident during his service. He had honorable service after his REFRAD.
3. The applicant provides a copy of a 17 September 2013 DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States).
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 was inducted on 28 May 1963. He held military occupational specialty (MOS) 64A (Light Vehicle Driver).
3. On 18 March 1965, he was convicted by a special court-martial, in accordance with his plea, of violation of Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 7 October to
16 December 1964. He was sentenced to confinement for 3 months.
4. On 27 April 1965, he was convicted by a special court-martial, in accordance with his plea, of being AWOL from 7 February to 30 March 1965. He was again sentenced to confinement for 3 months.
5. His record shows he accepted nonjudicial (NJP) punishment under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ on 5 June 1965 for being AWOL from 1 June to
3 June 1965.
6. His DD Form 214 shows he was REFRAD with a characterization of service of under honorable conditions on 7 December 1965 and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel) due to expiration of his term of service. He had completed 2 years of total active duty service with 194 days of lost time.
7. He was honorably discharged from the U.S. Army Reserve effective 30 April 1969.
8. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.
9. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) provides detailed instructions for completing separation documents, including the DD Form 214. It provides that the DD Form 214 is a summary of a Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty. It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active duty service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge. The DD Form 214 is not intended to have any legal effect on termination of a Soldier's service.
10. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) provides that:
a. The characterization of service will be determined solely by the military record during the current enlistment or period of service, plus any extension thereof, from which the Soldier is being separated.
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.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. Contrary to the applicant's assertion, the characterization of his REFRAD was not based on an isolated incident, but on repeated acts of misconduct -- conviction by two special courts-martial and one NJP, all for AWOL. His DD Form 214 shows a total of 194 days of lost time.
2. The applicant has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he requests. Considering his record of misconduct, the applicant not entitled to a change in the characterization of service of his REFRAD.
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) AR20110020828
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130017802
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003153
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 18 August 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110003153 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. However, the available evidence shows he was discharged on 10 January 1968 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness due to an established pattern of shirking with an undesirable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015919
On 29 May 1968, the United States Army Board of Review, Office of The Judge Advocate General, reassessed the sentence and approved only so much as provided for a bad conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for 6 months, and forfeiture of $50 pay per month for 6 months. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with a bad conduct discharge on 16 August 1968 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-204 for conviction by a general court-martial. __William...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020130
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant states his undesirable discharge was caused by one single incident in which he was provoked after having served considerable honorable service. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000371
On 18 October 1967, the convening authority suspended the unexecuted portion of the FSMs sentence pertaining to confinement at hard labor for 123 days, unless sooner vacated. There is no evidence in the available record to show the FSM ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010079
There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its15-year statute of limitations. The applicant's record of service shows he was convicted by one summary court-martial and two special courts-martial for being AWOL on five separate occasions and he received NJP four times under Article 15, UCMJ. While the applicant's awards of the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device for service in the Republic of Vietnam are...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080019919
The applicant requests his Undesirable Discharge (UD) be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge (HD). The applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) from his AIT unit from 13 March 1965 through 25 April 1965 (44 days). Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013073
In his recommendation, the unit commander stated there were indications that the applicant would go AWOL again if not discharged. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010335
The applicant states that prior to his release from active duty (REFRAD) he took a physical and he was told that he was not fit for military service and that he could not pass a physical for reenlistment. The applicant was REFRAD on 30 January 1962 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-205, paragraph 7, due to the early release of an overseas returnee and he was transferred to the United States Army Reserve Control Group (Annual Training) to complete his Reserve obligation. Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000258C070206
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with a bad conduct discharge on 14 July 1965 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-204, for conviction by a general court-martial. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice now under consideration on 14 July 1965; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073427C070403
Paragraph 1b of this regulation states that an enlisted person will be discharged with a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial imposing a bad conduct discharge. The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included one special court-martial conviction and one general court-martial conviction for a 115-day AWOL period which was terminated by apprehension and determined that his quality of service did not meet the...