IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 30 September 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140003430
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 (UOTHC) discharge.
2. The applicant states he went through a bad divorce that messed him up for a long time while he was in the Army. He is older and more stable now.
3. The applicant did not provide any supporting documentation.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provided that applications for correction of military records must be filed with 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records to excuse an applicants 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, and has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicants 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 24 September 1982. He held military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman).
3. His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record - Part II) shows he was awarded the Army Service Ribbon, Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar and the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar. The highest rank he attained was private two/E-2. Item 21 (Time Lost) shows 53 days of time lost from 7 July through 28 August 1983.
4. On 2 September 1983, charges were preferred against the applicant for his absence without leave (AWOL) from 7 July to 29 August 1983.
5. On 2 September 1983, he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. He acknowledged he understood the elements of the charges against him and admitted he was guilty of at least one of the offenses which authorized a punitive discharge. He also acknowledged he understood he might receive a discharge under conditions other than honorable, which would deprive him of many or all Army benefits, and he might be ineligible for veterans' benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA). He acknowledged he understood he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he were issued an under other than honorable discharge. He also indicated he had received legal advice, but his request for discharge had been made voluntarily and it reflected his own free will. He indicated he would not submit a statement on his own behalf.
6. His chain of command recommended approval of the action with issuance of a UOTHC discharge. On 12 September 1983, the separation authority approved the discharge request and directed issuance of a UOTHC Discharge Certificate.
7. On 18 October 1983, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10.
He had completed 11 months and 3 days of active duty.
8. There is no evidence he requested an upgrade of his discharge from the Army Discharge Review Board.
9. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
a. 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 request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.
b. Paragraph 3-7a states 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, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.
c. Paragraph 3-7b states 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. The applicant has provided no evidence to support his request for an upgrade of his UOTHC discharge.
2. His request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with legal counsel, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge he might have received. His service was appropriately characterized by the nature of his offenses and the circumstances of his separation and does not warrant an upgrade to honorable or general under honorable conditions.
3. In view of the foregoing, his 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 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) AR20100027085
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140003430
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001208
On 6 May 1983, the applicant was so discharged. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate. The applicant provided no evidence to show any relationship between the AWOL that led to his discharge and the welfare of his children.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007066
The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge. There is no evidence he requested an upgrade of his discharge from the Army Discharge Review Board. The applicant has provided no evidence to support his request for an upgrade of his UOTHC discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000286
There is no evidence he requested an upgrade of his discharge from the Army Discharge Review Board. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC was considered appropriate at the time. The applicant provided no evidence to support his request for an upgrade of his UOTHC discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001126
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. 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. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140021314
This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records to excuse an applicants 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. There is no evidence he requested an upgrade of his discharge from the Army Discharge Review Board. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016612
The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge. On 13 September 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and directed he receive a UOTHC discharge. Based on his record of misconduct, the applicant's service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019057
The applicant requests correction of his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to show he received a medical discharge. His service medical records are not available for review. (3) He was discharged in 1984.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008890
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge, characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), be change to a general, under honorable conditions, discharge. There is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided none, to show that he went AWOL to care for his mother and two sisters.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017472
On 15 August 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate. c. Paragraph 3-7b states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064698C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 25 November 1987, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for upgrade of his discharge. The applicant’s contention that his command violated his medical profile and denied his request to change his MOS is not supported by the available evidence of record.