Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015713
Original file (20140015713.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  21 April 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140015713 


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 his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he received a less than honorable discharge due to being absent without leave (AWOL).  He went AWOL because his pay records were lost and he was not receiving any pay.  He addressed the issue though his chain of command and he was told either there was nothing they could do or to wait another month and see if the problem was corrected.  After 
3 months he decided enough was enough and went home.  His wife was pregnant with their first child at the time and the only money they had was her separate rations.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of his application.

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.  On 24 November 1972, he enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training (AIT) and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 67V (OH-58 Helicopter Repairman).

3.  On 18 June 1973, he was assigned to Troop C, 2nd Squadron, 14th Cavalry at Fort Campbell, KY.

4.  On 3 October 1973, he went AWOL.  On 18 February 1974, he was apprehended by civil authorities in Turkey, TX.  On 27 February 1974, he was returned to military control at Dallas, TX.

5.  Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from on or about 3 October 1973 to 18 February 1974.

6.  He consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service.  He acknowledged he had been afforded the opportunity to speak with counsel prior to making this request.  He acknowledged he understood the elements of the offense he was charged with and he was:

* guilty of the offense for which he was charged
* making the request of his own free will
* advised he may be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate
* advised he could submit statements in his own behalf

7.  In addition, the applicant was advised he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he was issued an undesirable discharge and he:

* would be deprived of many or all Army benefits
* may be ineligible for many or all veteran's benefits
* may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws

8.  He submitted a statement from his defense counsel in his own behalf.  The defense counsel stated the information contained in the statement was taken from the available records and from a personal interview with the applicant.  Counsel stated:

* the applicant enlisted specifically for aircraft maintenance
* at AIT he was told he was excess in his requested MOS but he would receive the training because he had enlisted for it
* he did not have a steady job at Fort Campbell; he sat around all day or performed details for 4 months
* when he was allowed to work on a helicopter it was not in his MOS
* he had problems getting his separate rations allowance initiated
* he went AWOL on the day he was scheduled to pull weeds from a flower bed

9.  On 12 March 1974, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

10.  On 18 March 1974, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations) due to conduct triable by court martial.  He had completed 11 months and 17 days of net active service that was characterized as under other than honorable conditions.  He had 138 days of time lost.

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

12.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Chapter 10 stated a member who was charged with 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 in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request could be submitted at any time after charges had been preferred and must have included the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, an under than honorable conditions discharge was normally given to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service.  At the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.

	b.  An honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would have been clearly inappropriate.  

	c.  A general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  He contends he went AWOL because he was not receiving any pay.  He had taken steps through his chain of command, but was told they could do nothing or to wait another month and see if it got corrected.  However, his defense counsel indicated it was only his separate rations allowance he was having problems getting initiated.  His military records do not show these problems or why they existed.

2.  It appears the applicant did not like the duties he was ordered to perform.  Duties assigned to an individual are based on the needs of the unit and the Army.  The fact that he didn't like his assigned duties is not a sufficient reason to go AWOL.

3.  The applicant's voluntary request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  The issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge was normally considered appropriate when a member was separated under the provisions of chapter 10.  There is no evidence of procedural or other errors that would have jeopardized his rights. 

5.  The fact that he was apprehended by civil authorities after 138 days of being AWOL raises doubt as to his intent to return to military jurisdiction of his own volition.  Therefore, his service is considered unsatisfactory and there is no basis upon which to upgrade his undesirable discharge to either an honorable or a general 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)                                         AR20140015713



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140015713



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012720

    Original file (20060012720.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Although the applicant contends that there was a breach of contract and that he was told he would be able to obtain his funeral director’s license, evidence of record shows he was sent to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012969

    Original file (20130012969.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. On 8 January 1976, after consulting with counsel, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Separations), chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trail by court-martial. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations for an upgrade of his discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080015193

    Original file (20080015193.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 26 March 1974, the applicant requested a discharge for the good of the Service - in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel). The applicant's military service records contain his DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 16 April 1974, with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, with service characterized as under other than honorable conditions, in accordance with the provisions of Army...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022658

    Original file (20120022658.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s records show he was inducted into the Army of the United States on 16 July 1970. His records contain a Standard Form 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care), dated 29 August 1970, that shows he was seen at the Fort Campbell dispensary on that date for a complaint of muscle pain in both legs; he also stated he had had polio. Although the applicant was seen on several occasions by medical personnel for complaints of muscle/leg pain, the evidence or record does not show and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021641

    Original file (20120021641.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states, in effect, he was having family problems and the Army discharged him 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, he acknowledged he understood if the discharge request was approved he might be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 25 October...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011067

    Original file (20110011067.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 30 August 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. However, he went AWOL the first time for 20 days while in AIT.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078222C070215

    Original file (2002078222C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It shows his assignments and clearly indicates that he was assigned to perform duties in MOS 11D. The commander cited the bases for his recommendation were the applicant's AWOL offenses; his punishment record; and the fact that he was very unstable and he had many family problems. On 18 June 1985, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056203C070420

    Original file (2001056203C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 18 January 1974 the applicant requested that he be discharged for the good of the service. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013454

    Original file (20090013454.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general, under honorable conditions discharge. Service medical records show that on 9 September 1975, while in an AWOL status, the applicant was admitted to a civilian hospital in Evansville, IN under an assumed name and it was not known that he was an active member of the U.S. Army until December 1975, at which time he was transferred to the Army Hospital at Fort Campbell. On 5 August 1976, after consulting with...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140009020

    Original file (20140009020.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests upgrade of his discharge to honorable and correction of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty). On 22 July 1976, the applicant appeared in person before the ADRB and testified under oath that – * he enlisted to better his education and or training to get some kind of training that he couldn't otherwise get or afford * he first started having problems in the service when he couldn't get an allotment for his wife * the entire time he was in Germany it...