Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021904
Original file (20130021904.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF

		BOARD DATE:	    30 July 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130021904 


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 under other than honorable conditions discharge.

2.  The applicant states he missed 33 days of service and he asked to be discharged.  He did not realize his mistake nor was he informed.  He requests that his discharge be upgrade in order to apply for truck driving [training] under "Hazelwood."

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

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 16 March 1977.
3.  He was absent without leave (AWOL) during the period 4-7 March 1978.

4.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on:

   a. 13 June 1978 for two specifications of failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty and for sleeping while on guard duty; and
   
   b. on 14 August 1978 for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed.

5.  He departed AWOL on 4 December 1978 and remained AWOL until 
2 January 1979.

6.  On 3 January 1979, court-martial charges were preferred against him for eight specifications of failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, for being AWOL during the period 2-3 October 1978, and for being AWOL from 
4 December 1978 to 2 January 1979.

7.  On 10 January 1979, he consulted with legal counsel and 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 due to charges being preferred against him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.

8.  He acknowledged in his request for discharge that he was making the request of his own free will and he had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person.  He also acknowledge he had been advised of the implications that were attached to it and that by submitting the request for discharge, he was admitting guilt of the charge (s) against him or of lesser included offenses which also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He also acknowledged he understood he could be issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge and he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, and that he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, and that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  He further acknowledged he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of an undesirable discharge.

9.  On 24 January 1979, the separation authority approved his request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Under Other than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.  On 26 January 1979, he was discharged accordingly.  He completed 1 year, 9 months, and 9 days of active duty service and he accrued 33 days of time lost.

10.  The Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge on 26 October 1982.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  The regulation provides in:

	a.  Chapter 10 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.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally issued to an individual who is discharged for the good of the service.

	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 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.

12.  A search of the internet revealed that the Hazelwood Act is a State of Texas tuition exemption created to provide education benefits to honorably discharged or separated Texas veterans and to eligible dependent children and spouses of Texas veterans.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge in order to become eligible for State veterans benefits has been carefully considered.  However, the ABCMR does not upgrade discharges for the sole purpose of making an individual eligible for Federal and/or State veteran's benefits.

2.  The available evidence shows he was charged with the commission of offenses punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.  After consulting with legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request, he admitted guilt to the charges against him or of a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.

3.  His voluntary request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable laws and regulations. There is no indication the request was made under coercion or duress.

4.  His record of indiscipline includes NJP and court-martial charges for several specifications of failing to go to his appointed place of duty, AWOL on two occasions, and 33 days of time lost   Based on his record of indiscipline, his overall record of service does not support an upgrade of his discharge.

5.  Based on the foregoing, there is no basis to grant the requested 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 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)                                         AR20130021904



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130021904



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110014877

    Original file (20110014877.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 11 January 1980, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. Given the voluntary nature of his discharge request and his record of unsatisfactory participation in the OKARNG, his argument that his discharge should be upgraded...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000113

    Original file (20110000113.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. The appropriate authority approved his request for discharge with the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020675

    Original file (20100020675.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to an honorable discharge (HD) or discharge for medical reasons. The version of the regulation in effect at the time provided that an individual requesting discharge under chapter 10 would undergo a medical examination as prescribed in Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 10. c. Paragraph 3-7a provides that an HD is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008115

    Original file (20120008115.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 11 April 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge and directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003190

    Original file (20140003190.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, the applicant's records show that he consulted with legal counsel and 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 due to charges being preferred against him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. The evidence also shows that his voluntary...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002762

    Original file (20150002762.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to honorable. There is no evidence that shows he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013098

    Original file (20130013098.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. There is no evidence in his available records that shows he was discharged because of his age or that he was granted extended leave. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) provides guidance for hearings and the disposition of applications.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003807

    Original file (20140003807.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. Following consultation with legal counsel, he requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a characterization of service of under other than honorable...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005494

    Original file (20090005494.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 18 November 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, 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 applicant’s record shows he was...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110002971

    Original file (20110002971.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his discharge be upgraded. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge. Based on this record of indiscipline and in view of the fact he voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in a punitive discharge, his overall record of service did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority at the time and it does not...