IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 2 September 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140001972
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 under other than honorable conditions discharge.
2. The applicant states his discharge was too harsh. He was convicted of disobeying a direct order to help a fellow Soldier to move an empty trash can from one floor to another. His witness who was to assist him in fighting the conviction was released early to keep him from testifying on his behalf. If his fellow Soldier had been there the outcome of his discharge may have been different. He also contends that he has been an honorable and model citizen for more than 40 years with no felony or misdemeanor convictions.
3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty).
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. On 28 December 1973, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army. He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 71N (Movement Specialist).
3. The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment on 8 May 1974, for being absent without leave from 4 to 6 May 1974, and on 1 August 1974, for being disrespectful in language, disobeying a lawful order, and using reproachful words towards a superior noncommissioned officer.
4. Special Court-Martial Orders Number 2, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Infantry Center, Fort Benning, GA on 11 March 1975, show the applicant was, on 10 February 1975, convicted of a violation of Article 91 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); specifically, he was convicted of disobeying a lawful order.
5. The discharge packet is missing from his military records; however, his
DD Form 214 shows he was administratively discharged on 11 April 1975, under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-200, paragraph 13-5a, for unfitness. His service was characterized as under conditions other than honorable. He completed 1 year, 2 months and 16 days of creditable active duty and had
28 days of lost time.
6. There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
7. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13, in effect at the time, contained the policy and outlined the procedures for separating individuals for unfitness. At that time, paragraph 13-5 provided for the separation of individuals for unfitness, which included frequent incidents of a discreditable nature. When separation for unfitness was warranted an Undesirable Discharge Certificate was normally issued.
a. Paragraph 3-7a, of the version currently in effect, 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 members service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.
b. Paragraph 3-7b, of the version currently in effect, 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.
8. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)) - paragraph 2-9 provides that the Board begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant contends that his under other than honorable conditions discharge should be upgraded because it was too harsh.
2. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that his discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record of service.
3. Based on his record of indiscipline which includes more than just his court-martial conviction, his service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct for Army personnel. His misconduct rendered his service unsatisfactory. Therefore, he is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge.
4. The applicants belief that his characterization of service is too harsh is not supported by any documented evidence. Furthermore, he has not provided a convincing argument or corroborating testimony to support his contention.
5. In view of the foregoing, the applicant's 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) AR20140001972
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140001972
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011434
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND 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. However, at the time of the applicants separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013028
He was sentenced to be discharge from the service with a bad conduct discharge. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge. ___________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 | CY2009 | 20090008362
The applicant states that he was only 17 years old at the time of his enlistment and that he was 19 years old at the time of his discharge. The applicant submits two Letters of Commendation dated 14 May 1973. Considering the nature of his court-martial offenses and his overall record of service, it does not appear that his undesirable discharge is too severe.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007953
Accordingly, on 8 November 1974, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 11 (Dishonorable and BCD), and he was issued DD Form 259A (BCD Discharge Certificate). On 17 August 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request to upgrade his discharge. His conviction and sentence by special court-martial were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the discharge appropriately...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009951
On 28 March 1975, his commander recommended that he be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 13, for frequent acts of a discreditable nature with military authorities. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. _______ _ x _______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001851
The applicant, the widow of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests upgrade of her late husband's undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. The FSM's court-martial charge sheet is not available; however, on 19 September 1975, after consulting with counsel, he submitted a request for 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. Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002218
The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. There is no indication 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. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021762
The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD) to an honorable discharge. On 4 February 1975, after consulting with counsel, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Separations), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial for charges being preferred against him. There is no evidence he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100000283
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. 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. With the exception of the DD Form 214, all evidence shows the applicant was discharged for unfitness under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-5.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | AR20140011632
The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. The evidence of record shows he was given a BCD pursuant to an approved sentence of a special court-martial for in conjunction with an unknown person, stealing U.S. currency from a fellow Soldier. His conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted.