Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015146
Original file (20140015146.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:    

		BOARD DATE:  28 April 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140015146 


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 characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to under honorable conditions (general).

2.  The applicant states he went absent without leave (AWOL) in 1977 after being franticly contacted by his mother stating that she needed help separating from and divorcing his father.  She needed him to testify in court that his father was physically beating her.  He left his post without permission.  He feels an upgrade of his characterization of service is warranted because he was AWOL due to an honest mistake in judgment he made when he was extremely young.  He needed to help his mother find safety.  Now he needs medical care from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and does not feel his mistake should prevent him from receiving VA medical care.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his mother's divorce decree, dated 
19 February 1974.

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 parents were married on 8 June 1958 and the applicant was born on 24 August 1958.  

3.  He provided a copy of his mother's divorce decree, dated 19 February 1974, which shows the court found the applicant's father guilty of extreme and repeated mental cruelty and awarded his mother a divorce on this basis.  Additionally, his mother was awarded sole custody of three minor children, listed by name and including the applicant.  He was 15 years old on the date his mother's divorce was finalized.  

4.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 October 1975 at the age of 17 years and held military occupational specialty 12F (Tracked Combat Engineer).  The highest rank/grade he attained while serving on active duty was private 
(PV2)/E-2.

5.  His record contains an extensive history of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

	a.  On 4 November 1976, he accepted NJP for wrongfully possessing one ounce (more or less) of hashish.

	b.  On 4 March 1977, he accepted NJP for being AWOL from on or about:

* 11 to 22 November 1976 (12 days)
* 1 to 6 December 1976 (6 days)
* 11 to 24 January 1977 (14 days)
* 1 to 14 February 1977 (14 days)

	c.  On 31 March 1977, he accepted NJP for failing to go to his appointed place of duty:

* the battalion dining facility, on 20 March 1977
* the morning formation, on 22 March 1977

6.  Court-martial charges were preferred again him in April 1977.  He was charged with being AWOL from 4 April to 18 July 1977.

7.  The complete facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge action are not available for review with this case.  However, his record contains a DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 21 July 1977 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, and received an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  This form shows he completed 1 year, 6 months, and 3 days of creditable active military service with 104 days of lost time.

8.  There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 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.  Additionally, 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 contention that his discharge should be upgraded because he went AWOL in 1977 to help his mother with her divorce and to testify against his father lacks merit.  He was 15 years old at the time of his parents' divorce in 1974 and he was listed among the minor children.    

2.  The evidence of record shows he was age 17 at the time of enlistment and he was almost age 19 at the time he committed the AWOL offense that resulted in court-martial charges being preferred against him.  However, there is no evidence that indicates he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.

3.  The issuance of a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, chapter 10, required the applicant to have voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, request discharge from the Army for the good of the service.  It is presumed that all requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  He provided no evidence that would indicate the contrary.  Further, it is presumed his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service during his enlistment.  Absent evidence to the contrary, regularity must be presumed in this case.

4.  His record contains a series of NJP for possession of illegal drugs, failure to report, and for being AWOL.  He accumulated 104 days of lost time; therefore, his service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct also renders his service unsatisfactory.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant either a general or an honorable discharge.

5.  The ABCMR does not grant requests for upgrade of discharges solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible for veterans or other benefits.  Every case is individually decided based upon its merits when an applicant requests a change in his or her 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)                                         AR20140015146



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140015146



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013484

    Original file (20130013484.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 15 March 1977, his immediate commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-37 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)). On 6 April 1977, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The evidence of record shows the applicant demonstrated he could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of his inability to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003719

    Original file (20090003719.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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. On 1 September 1979, the FSM authenticated a DD Form 1883 (Survivor Benefit Plan Election Certificate) that shows he was married, that he elected spouse only coverage, that he elected to provide an annuity based on the full amount of his...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003742

    Original file (20090003742.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The applicant has provided no evidence other than his self-authored statement that the circumstances regarding his personal problems were the reasons he committed the offenses which led to his discharge. Therefore, he has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record that the actions taken in his case were in...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140021040

    Original file (20140021040 .txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that his service be characterized as under other than honorable conditions. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 9 December 1977 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007245

    Original file (20140007245.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions to a general discharge. A discharge under other than honorable conditions would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110008667

    Original file (20110008667.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his under other than honorable conditions discharge (UOTHC) be changed to a medical discharge. On 28 July 1977, after consulting with counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10. He was released on 28 February 1977 and returned to duty.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008244

    Original file (20090008244.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests, in effect, correction to the records of her deceased former spouse, a former service member (FSM), to show he elected Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) former spouse coverage. There is no evidence the FSM submitted a request to change his SBP election from spouse to former spouse coverage as a result of their divorce. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the FSM concerned be corrected by: a. showing the FSM changed his SBP coverage...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014704

    Original file (20130014704.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests the records of her late husband, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show he changed his Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage from spouse to former spouse. The applicant may apply to the Army Board of Correction of Military Record. The evidence of record shows on 14 May 1991 the FSM made an SBP election for coverage for "spouse and dependent children only" and the applicant, his spouse at the time, concurred with this election.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711274

    Original file (9711274.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DD Form 41, Record of Emergency Date, dated 7 October 1992, shows the FSM as divorced, the two youngest children as residing with their mother. The applicant is listed as the FSM’s spouse. The opinion noted that, based upon lack of evidence that the FSM intended to deny his former spouse the benefit, and considering the nature of his relationship with his former spouse until his death as attested to by statements from the applicant and the FSM’s children, it is reasonable to change the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024111

    Original file (20110024111.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 15 July 1977, the applicant and FSM completed a settlement agreement in the Superior Court for the County of Whitfield and State of Georgia which stipulated, in pertinent part, that the FSM currently made payments on an annuity contract (SBP) whereby a percentage of his monthly retirement pay from the United States Government would continue at his death unto the applicant and the minor children of the marriage. In view of the foregoing and given there is no current spouse beneficiary, it...