Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140004752
Original file (20140004752.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:  28 October 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140004752 


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 to a general discharge.

2.  The applicant states he regrets being absent without leave (AWOL) and his character has improved.

3.  The applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) and pages 3 and 4 of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record - Part II).

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 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, and 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 2 October 1981.  He held military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman).  

3.  His DA Form 2-1 shows he completed a tour in Korea and was awarded the Army Service Ribbon and the Overseas Service Ribbon.  The highest rank he attained was specialist.  

4.  On 17 April 1985, charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 21 January to 5 April 1985.

5.  On 17 April 1985, 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 veteran’s 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 in his own behalf.

6.  His chain of command recommended approval of the action with issuance of a UOTHC discharge.  On 1 July 1985, the separation authority approved the discharge request and directed issuance of a UOTHC Discharge Certificate.

7.  On 12 July 1985, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10.  He had completed 3 years, 6 months, and 27 days of active duty.  Time lost is shown as 21 January through 4 April 1985.

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 UOTHC discharge 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 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 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.  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 either an honorable or a general discharge.

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)                                         AR20140004752



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100030523

    Original file (20100030523.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On the same day, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a voluntary 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), chapter 10. Chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time provided 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007492

    Original file (20120007492.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. He respectfully requests upgrade of his discharge. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001208

    Original file (20120001208.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2015 | 20150002674

    Original file (20150002674.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 25 February 1986, he consulted with counsel and 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. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009260

    Original file (20130009260.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to a general discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130006620

    Original file (20130006620.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to general. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate. The applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, even after appropriate and proper consultation with legal counsel, indicates he wished to avoid trial by court-martial and the punitive discharge he might have received.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007129

    Original file (20090007129.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded. The evidence of record confirms that in his request for discharge, the applicant acknowledged his understanding that there were no provisions for an automatic review or upgrade of his discharge and that he would have to apply for an upgrade and/or change to the reason for his discharge...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014566

    Original file (20060014566.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In his request the applicant stated he understood he could request discharge for the good of the service because charges had been filed against him under the UCMJ, which could authorize the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. The applicant stated that he understood that if his request were accepted, he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an under other than honorable conditions discharge certificate. In order to justify correction of a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120013873

    Original file (20120013873.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 14 August 1985, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a voluntary 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 court-martial. On 20 August 1985, the Commanding General approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service, reduced the applicant to the lowest enlisted grade, and directed that he be issued a UOTHC Discharge...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002386

    Original file (20130002386.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states, in effect, that he completed his service warranting an honorable discharge. On 28 May 1987, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request to upgrade his UOTHC discharge.