Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002858
Original file (20140002858.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:    

		BOARD DATE:  30 September 2014  	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140002858 


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 under other than honorable conditions discharge.

2.  The applicant states he is having medical issues and without health insurance he cannot get his issues resolved.  He is homeless and has no source of income.  He further states this is the first time he has requested an upgrade of his discharge which occurred over 37 years ago.

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 5 June 1975.
3.  His records show he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice on 3 December 1975 for absenting himself from his place of duty from 20 to 25 November 1975.  

4.  On 2 May 1977, his commander recommended the applicant be required to appear before a board of officers convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Misconduct) to determine whether he should be discharged before the expiration of his term of service.

   a.  The discharge was recommended due to recent civilian convictions for two counts of unauthorized use of a motor-propelled vehicle and escape and burglary with intent to commit theft.

   b.  On 3 July 1976, the applicant escaped from Chambers County Jail, Beaumont, TX, where he was awaiting trial for unauthorized use of a motor-propelled vehicle.  The applicant was again apprehended by civilian authorities on 6 July 1976 and charged with two counts of unauthorized use of a motor-propelled vehicle and escape and burglary with intent to commit theft.  The applicant was subsequently sentenced to not less than two nor more than five years of confinement for each charge.  The applicant was confined in the Texas Department of Correction, Coffield Unit, Tennessee Colony, TX. 

5.  On 1 April 1977, the applicant was notified that action had been initiated to effect his discharge from the service for conviction by civil court.

6.  On 11 April 1977, the applicant acknowledged he had been notified of the pending separation action against him and that he had been advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action.  He requested consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived a personal appearance before a board of officers, waived representation by military or civilian counsel, and elected not to submit statements in his own behalf.

7.  He acknowledged he understood in the event of the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge he might be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws, and may encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.

8.  On 1 June 1977, a board of officers convened at Fort Sill, OK.  The applicant was incarcerated at the time of the board and he did not request representation by counsel.  The board found sufficient evidence to support his elimination from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 with the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  Accordingly, he was discharged on 30 June 1977. 

9.  The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, for misconduct - conviction by civil court with an under other than honorable conditions character of service.  He had completed a total of 8 months and 1 day of creditable active military service and he had 513 days of lost time.

10.  There is no evidence in his records showing he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 
15-year statute of limitations.

11.  Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for misconduct.  It provided, in pertinent part, that members convicted by civil authorities would be considered for discharge.  

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) provides the basic policies and procedures for the separation of enlisted personnel.  

   a. 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.

   b. 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.  On 3 July 1976, the applicant escaped from Chambers County Jail, Beaumont, TX, where he was awaiting trial for unauthorized use of a motor-propelled vehicle.  On 6 July 1976, the applicant was again apprehended by civilian authorities and charged with two counts of unauthorized use of a motor-propelled vehicle and escape and burglary with intent to commit theft.  The applicant was subsequently sentenced to not less than two nor more than five years of confinement for each charge.  
2.  As required by the applicable regulation at the time, his chain of command initiated separation action against him and he was notified of his rights.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  His discharge appears to be appropriate based on the quality of his service.  

3.  While the applicant's post-service issues are unfortunate, it is an insufficient basis for upgrading a discharge.  His actions at the time clearly brought discredit upon himself and the Army.  His service was not consistent with Army standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  His misconduct also renders his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge or 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)                                         AR20140002858



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140002858



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130004302

    Original file (20130004302.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states he did not initiate the action that resulted in his discharge. On 27 May 1977, his commander notified him that he was beginning discharge proceedings against him, to eliminate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Misconduct), based on his conviction by a civil court. Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for misconduct.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000571

    Original file (20110000571.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The board recommended the applicant be discharged with an undesirable discharge for misconduct for reason of civil conviction. b. Paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011610C070208

    Original file (20040011610C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Patrick H. McGann, Jr. | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Army Regulation 635-206, then in effect, provided that an enlisted member who was convicted by a civilian court of an offense for which the authorized punishment under the UCMJ included confinement of 1 year or more was to be considered for elimination. __ James C. Hise________ CHAIRPERSON INDEX |CASE ID |AR20040011610 | |SUFFIX | | |RECON | | |DATE...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140005301

    Original file (20140005301.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 2 May 1976, the applicant requested consideration of his case by a Board of Officers and representation by counsel. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel: a. Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. b. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100000584

    Original file (20100000584.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 16 November 1978, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. His service was not consistent with Army standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004978C070206

    Original file (20050004978C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge, characterized as under other than honorable conditions, be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to upgrade his discharge. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070014097

    Original file (20070014097.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 16 December 1976, the applicant's unit commander notified him he was recommending that he be discharged from the Army under the provision of Army Regulation 635-206, due to his having been convicted in a civil court. After carefully considering all of the evidence, the board found that the applicant was undesirable for retention in the military due to his civil conviction and recommended that he be discharged from the Army with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. After...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050005171C070206

    Original file (20050005171C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Paragraph 33 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members convicted by civil authorities would be considered for separation. Records show the applicant exhausted his administrative remedies in this case when his case was last reviewed by the ADRB on 3 January 1986.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066853C070402

    Original file (2002066853C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The applicant’s three EERs indicate that his overall military conduct and performance of duty was not satisfactory.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | AR20050014849C070206

    Original file (AR20050014849C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He also states that he told his commander that all he wanted was to get treatment and carry on with his duties but his commander did not want to hear that. He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 21 July 1977 for an upgrade of his discharge and contended at that time that it was unjust for the Army to discharge him for a civilian offense, because he was serving time for that offense at that time. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge...