Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003361
Original file (20140003361.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  14 October 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140003361 


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 his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states at the time he was under a lot of stress.  He was in the process of a divorce and his mother was in the hospital for throat cancer.  The only thing he could think of was to go absent without leave (AWOL) and try to figure things out.  After a year he returned to Fort Devens, MA to either finish his time or do time in the stockade.

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

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 27 November 1970, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  On 
4 May 1971, he was assigned to Company B, 3rd Battalion, 7th Air Defense Artillery in Germany.  On 17 November 1971, he was promoted to specialist four/pay grade E-4.

3.  On 13 October 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from on or about 1 December 1971 to on or about 
9 October 1972.

4.  On 14 October 1972, he voluntarily 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.  He acknowledged he had been afforded the opportunity to speak with counsel prior to making his request.  He acknowledged he understood the elements of the offense he was charged with and he was:

* making the request of his own free will
* not making a statement in his own behalf
* advised he might be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate

5.  He acknowledged he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he were issued an undesirable discharge and he:

* would be deprived of many or all Army benefits
* might be ineligible for many or all veterans' benefits
* might be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws

6.  On 10 November 1972, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge and directed that the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

7.  On 17 January 1973, he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service with an undesirable discharge.  He completed 1 year, 3 months, and 13 days of total active service that was characterized as under conditions other than honorable.  He had 313 days of time lost.

8.  He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to upgrade his discharge.  On 21 June 1982, the ADRB reviewed and denied the applicant's request for upgrade.  The ADRB determined that the applicant's discharge was proper and equitable and that the discharge was properly characterized as under other than honorable conditions.
9.  Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  

	a.  Chapter 10 stated a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge may, at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate.  At the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.

	b.  .  Paragraph 3-7b states 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.  He contends he was undergoing a stressful time because of his pending divorce and his mother being in the hospital.  

	a.  There is no evidence he requested leave through his chain of command to see his mother while she was in the hospital.  At the time he went AWOL he had over a year on active duty and he was a specialist four.  Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude he was aware of procedures he had available to him, such as emergency leave, to see his mother.

	b.  Although it is unfortunate he was experiencing divorce proceedings at the time, unfortunately many Soldiers have faced this dilemma during their period of service.  However, these same Soldiers went on to complete their enlistments or careers and receive honorable discharges.  Therefore, the fact that he was going through a divorce cannot be used as a mitigating circumstance to upgrade a properly issued discharge.

2.  He had 313 days time lost.  Therefore, his service was unsatisfactory.

3.  His voluntary request for separation 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 regulations.

4.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  The undesirable discharge he received accurately reflected his overall record of service. 
5.  Based on the foregoing, there is no basis for upgrading his 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)                                         AR20140003361



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140003361



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003948C070206

    Original file (20050003948C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 27 April 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. On 29 July 1975, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request for an honorable discharge. As a result, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice to this Board expired on 28 July 1978.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019971

    Original file (20140019971.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant provides a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States) in lieu of an application for correction of military records with a self-authored statement and exhibits 13 through 22. On 8 August 1983, the applicant underwent a separation physical in which he indicated he was in "good health."

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011167

    Original file (20080011167.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    To deal with the trauma – which later became known as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), he self-medicated with alcohol and drugs. There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant requested a hardship discharge prior to his discharge. He stated, when he requested discharge, that he did not like Germany or the Army at all so he reenlisted to go to Vietnam.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120019946

    Original file (20120019946.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 31 January 1972 after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for 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. In summary, he stated: * he served one 12-month tour of duty in Vietnam * he had a good record, except for one Article 15 * he wanted to get out of the Army because he could not adjust to military life and this was the reason for...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019876

    Original file (20140019876.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions. On 31 July 1972, he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service with an undesirable discharge. This program, known as the DOD Discharge Review Program (Special) (SDRP) required, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, that a discharge upgrade to either honorable or general be issued in the case of any...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060017355

    Original file (20060017355.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states, in effect, that he went absent without leave (AWOL) due to family problems. On 29 June 1972, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 14 July 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009848

    Original file (20130009848.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 15 March 1972, the separation authority approved the discharge action and ordered the applicant reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with an undesirable discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 16 March 1972. The applicant's request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge was carefully considered; however, there is insufficient evidence to support his request.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080015869

    Original file (20080015869.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 31 January 1974, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060006944C070205

    Original file (20060006944C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 28 June 1972, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. On 13 June 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 13 July 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019817

    Original file (20100019817.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Evidence shows he was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 10 July 1972. Evidence shows he was awarded a clemency discharge in 1975 pursuant to PP 4313 of 16 September 1974. His record of service included three NJP actions (one received prior to his arrival in Vietnam) and 216 days of time lost due to being AWOL.