Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003807
Original file (20140003807.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  2 October 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140003807 


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, in effect, his discharge should be upgraded. 

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge 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.  The applicant's records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 January 1978 and he was assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, MO for training in military occupational specialty 62E (Heavy Construction Equipment Operator).
3.  On 1 May 1978, while a student at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, he departed his unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status and on 30 May 1978, he was dropped from the rolls as a deserter.  He appears to have returned to military control on 7 November 1979. 

4.  On 14 November 1979, court-martial charges were preferred against him for one specification of being AWOL from 1 May 1978 to 7 November 1979. 

5.  On 14 November 1979, he consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the possible effects of a request for discharge, and the procedures and rights available to him. Following consultation with legal counsel, he 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.  In his request for discharge, he acknowledged:

* he was making this request of his own free will and had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person
* he understood by requesting a discharge he was admitting guilt to the charges against him or of lesser-included offenses that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a dishonorable discharge
* he acknowledged he understood if his discharge request were approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits
* he acknowledged he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration and he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws
* he stated that under no circumstances did he desire further rehabilitation or to perform further military service
* he did not elect to submit a statement on his own behalf 

6.  On 3 and 9 December 1979, his immediate and intermediate commanders recommended approval of his request with the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  His immediate commander stated:

* the applicant had no motivation for continued service; he would not respond to either counseling or rehabilitation 
* the applicant was medically examined and was found qualified for separation


7.  On 15 December 1979, consistent with the chain of command recommendations, the separation authority approved his request for discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and directed he receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge with reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. 
On 21 January 1980, he was discharged accordingly.

8.  His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  He completed 5 months and 23 days of active service and he had lost time from 1 May 1978 to 6 November 1979. 

9.  There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for a review of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations 

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 provides 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 under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

	a.  Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  It 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.  The applicant's records show he was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.  Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.

2.  His records do not show he had issues or problems that led him to go AWOL at the time.  Likewise, there is no evidence he addressed any problems with his chain of command or other support channels at his installation.  There would have been other legitimate avenues to address any issues or problems and resolve them had the applicant elected to choose those options.

3.  The evidence of record clearly shows he chose to be AWOL and the court-martial charges were related to AWOL.  He was advised of his rights and knew the implications of his choice.  He chose discharge in lieu of a court-martial that could have adjudged a bad conduct discharge or a dishonorable discharge.

4.  Based on his record of indiscipline, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  His misconduct rendered his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, 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)                                         AR20140003807



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140003807



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069021C070402

    Original file (2002069021C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071573C070402

    Original file (2002071573C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. Chapter 10 of the regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100015649

    Original file (20100015649.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a more favorable discharge. He was returned to military control at Fort Dix where charges were preferred against him for his AWOL offenses. There is no indication in the available records to show he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059779C070421

    Original file (2001059779C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The request was approved and the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions from the OKARNG on 23 October 1979, the same date he was ordered to active duty at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 23 October 1979 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071837C070403

    Original file (2002071837C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : That he voluntarily enlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) because it was the right thing to do. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120012676

    Original file (20120012676.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, the applicant's records contain a duly-authenticated DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) which shows he was discharged under other than honorable conditions in lieu of trial by court-martial on 13 April 1981 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10. There is no evidence in the available records to show he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge during that board's 15-year...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003471

    Original file (20130003471.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He ordered the applicant to confinement at the United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, KS, and he forwarded the record of trial to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for review by the U.S. Army Court of Military Review. c. Paragraph 11-1, in effect at the time, provided that a Soldier would be given a dishonorable discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general court-martial, after completion of appellate review and after such affirmed sentence had been...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006832

    Original file (20140006832.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he was discharged on 26 March 1979 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, with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. In fact, the evidence of record shows the statement the applicant made at the time of his separation processing was available to the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012969

    Original file (20140012969.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he entered active duty this period on 27 July 1978 and he was discharged on 9 April 1979 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, with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. The evidence of record shows that the applicant's request for discharge...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110007816

    Original file (20110007816.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but the separation authority may direct a general discharge or an honorable discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record and if the Soldier's record is so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be improper. The evidence of record shows he was nearly 19 years of age at the time of his discharge. The characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under...