IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 2 December 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140003775
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 discharge under other than honorable conditions to a discharge under honorable conditions (general).
2. The applicant states:
* He admits to his involvement and wrongdoing
* While he was in the Army he was influenced by his fellow service members
* He believes that without that influence he would have fulfilled his service obligation as shown by the merits and achievements he received
* He was a model Soldier and he exemplified true professionalism
* He accepted an administrative discharge and although he accepts his current state, it is hurtful to him to have served so exemplary and without a blemish in his record
* He had a stellar history in the Army, thus finding his current situation weighing heavily on him since his service
3. The applicant provides:
* Statements and supporting letters from friends and former employers attesting to his good character and post-service conduct
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) dated 30 June 1982 (two copies)
* Certificates of Achievement, Training, and Promotion
* Certificate for Award of the title of Master Gardner dated 27 November 2013
* Certificate of Membership of the Freeport Tuna club dated 11 July 1996
* Suburban Technical School Digital Computer Technology Diploma dated 13 July 1986
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 13 July 1978. He completed training as a chemical operations specialist.
3. The available records show that on 11 March 1982 the applicant was notified that charges were preferred against him for the wrongful possession of marijuana and for failing to obey a lawful general order or regulation. He acknowledged receipt of the notification. 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. In his request for discharge, the applicant acknowledged he understood:
* if his request for discharge was accepted, he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits as a result of the issuance of such a discharge
* he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA)
* he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws
* he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of a discharge under other than honorable conditions
4. The appropriate authority approved his request for discharge on 25 May 1982 and directed the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions. On 30 June 1982, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 3 years, 11 months, and 18 days of net active service this period. He received an under other than honorable conditions character of service.
5. The available evidence shows that on 7 October 1985 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.
6. The applicant provides statements and supporting letters from friends and former employers attesting to his good character and post-service conduct. He also provides copies of Certificates of Achievement, Training, and Promotion that he received while he was in the Army and after his discharge from the Army.
7. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. It states:
a. Chapter 10 provides that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial charges were preferred. Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service. Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses charged, the type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of VA benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge. A discharge under other than honorable conditions would normally be furnished to an individual who was 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 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. His records show he had charges pending against him for being in possession of marijuana and for failure to obey a lawful order. He voluntarily submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. He was discharged in accordance with the applicable regulation and the type of discharge he received appropriately characterizes his overall record of service.
2. The available evidence does not show that his Army service was blemish-free. Prior to his discharge he acknowledged that he understood the type of discharge he might receive. His service simply did not rise to the level of a general or an honorable discharge.
3. The applicant has not shown error or injustice in the actions taken by the Army in his case.
4. 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) AR20140003775
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140003775
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100000004
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE: 1. However, at the time of the applicant's separation an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016690
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 2 April 1971, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. On 2 June 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for a discharge upgrade.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140004969
He states: * a UOTHC discharge seems too severe at the time it was issued based on his military service records * his first years in the military were good and his record of promotions shows he was generally a good service member * his average conduct and efficiency ratings/marks were pretty good * he did not have any problems until he was assigned to Fort Polk * his record of nonjudicial punishments (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) indicate minor offenses 3. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010456
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 September 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100010456 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Paragraph 3-7b of Army Regulation 635-200 provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The applicant was discharged from the Army because he submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000601
He acknowledged that he was guilty of the charges or lesser included charges and that, if the request was accepted, he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) Discharge Certificate. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. The applicant should be justifiably proud of this period of service, the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020769
The applicant requests upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions. On 5 February 1982, 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 | CY2013 | 20130022092
The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. There is no evidence that indicates he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military terms of service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140004774
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 1 March 1982, the applicant submitted a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. On 23 March 1982, the appropriate authority (a brigadier general) approved his request for discharge and directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge certificate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013931
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 15 June 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an honorable discharge. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008105
On 27 October 1982, his commander recommended the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service and that he be given a UOTHC discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a UOTHC discharge was normally considered appropriate. The evidence does not support his request that his discharge should be upgraded.