Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008633
Original file (20140008633.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:  16 December 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140008633 


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 regrets any and all of the unfortunate circumstances that led to the unfavorable discharge.

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 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 21 August 1972.  He held military occupational specialty 12C (Bridge Specialist).

3.  His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows the highest rank he attained was private/E-2 and he was authorized the National Defense Service Medal.

4.  On 26 June 1974, charges were preferred against the applicant for three specifications of being absent without leave (AWOL) -- 20 April 1974, 22 April 1974, and from 6 May 1974 to 11 June 1974.

5.  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 elected to not submit a statement in his own behalf.

6.  His immediate commander and the group commander recommended approval of the separation with issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

7.  The separation authority approved the discharge request and directed issuance of a Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

8.  On 18 September 1974, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10.  He had completed 1 year, 11 months, and 6 days of creditable active service.

9.  On 22 May 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge.

10.  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, an undesirable 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 undesirable 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)                                         AR20140008633



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021857

    Original file (20100021857.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. On 1 July 1974, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and directed the issuance of a general discharge. His military record and his statement regarding his post-service conduct were taken into consideration, but given the seriousness of the offense, his service is appropriately characterized.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014857

    Original file (20140014857.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 7 December 1984, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant's record shows he was charged with being AWOL, which is punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020632

    Original file (20100020632.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He acknowledged he understood if his discharge request was approved, he might be discharged under conditions other than honorable and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 1 October 1974, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007634

    Original file (20130007634.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to general. There is no evidence he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011457

    Original file (20100011457.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his discharge be upgraded. He arrived in the RVN for a second tour of duty on 12 April 1970. _______ _ 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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008501

    Original file (20130008501.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. In his request for discharge, he acknowledged he understood if the discharge request were approved, he might be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015528

    Original file (20130015528.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 9 June 1975, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. There is no evidence that shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. _______ _ _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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016659

    Original file (20110016659.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. He was discharged on 30 January 1974 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with an undesirable discharge. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100030411

    Original file (20100030411.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 25 February 1974, 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. On 4 March 1974, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed the issuance of an undesirable discharge. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019661

    Original file (20130019661 .txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. There is no evidence in the available records to show he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.