BOARD DATE: 21 April 2015
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140015863
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, in effect, an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.
2. The applicant states his service record was clean except for one mistake that wasn't his fault. He wants to be eligible for military veterans' benefits.
3. The applicant did not provide any documentation in support of his request.
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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 December 1983 and he reenlisted on 30 June 1987. He held military occupational specialty 72E (Tactical Telecommunications Center Operator).
3. His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record Part II) shows in:
a. Item 5 (Oversea Service) he served in Korea from 18 November 1985 through 18 November 1986; and
b. item 18 (Appointments and Reductions), the highest rank/grade he attained was specialist/E-4.
4. The applicant's discharge packet is not available for review. His DD Form 214 shows, on 8 February 1993, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct-commission of a serious offense, with a UOTHC discharge. He had completed 9 years and 2 months of active duty service.
5. There is no available evidence showing he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.
6. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
a. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include commission of a serious offense. A serious offense is one which warrants separation and for which the individual could receive a punitive discharge at a trial by court-martial. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldiers overall record.
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 members 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.
7. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. Paragraph 2-9 states the ABCMR begins consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not available. His DD Form 214 shows he was administratively discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct-commission of a serious offense.
2. He has not provided any evidence to support his request.
3. The regulation governing this Board's operation requires that the discharge process be presumed to have been in accordance with applicable law and regulations unless the applicant can provide evidence to overcome that presumption.
4. In view of the foregoing there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.
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) AR20120009372
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140015863
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021878
On 10 February 1987, the applicant was notified of the proposed separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 14-12, for misconduct (commission of a serious offense) for larceny, utterance of numerous worthless checks, attempts to obtain services under false pretenses, and AWOL. On 3 March 1987, the applicant was separated with a UOTHC discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (commission of a serious...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011610
On 19 October 1993, the separation authority approved the separation action and directed the applicant be discharged from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct commission of a serious offense with a UOTHC discharge. Records show the applicant was 21 years of age at the time of his offenses. It appears the separation authority determined the applicant's overall service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002229
On 10 August 1993, the applicant's unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to recommend discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct commission of a serious offense. On 20 September 1993, the separation authority approved the separation action and directed the applicant be discharged from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008135
The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The circumstances under which he was discharged merited the character of the discharge at the time. He was advised of the factual reasons for the proposed separation action and that he could be discharged with a UOTHC discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002453
The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to honorable. He requests an upgrade of his discharge UOTHC based on his post-service conduct. The applicant's immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12(c), for misconduct commission of a serious offense.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006859
His service record does not indicate he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Although a UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, it appears the separation authority determined the applicant's overall service met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty to warrant a general discharge. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020943
The applicant requests that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 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. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110023375
On 26 June 2009, the applicant received counseling regarding his company commander's decision to initiate action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for patterns of misconduct. However, his available record shows an administrative separation board found he had committed two serious offenses and recommended he be discharged with a UOTHC discharge. He provided no evidence or a convincing argument to show his discharge should be upgraded and his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019662
On or about 21 September 1988, the applicant consulted with counsel concerning his rights and requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board and to appear before such board. A UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. The applicant's record of good service was greatly diminished by his commission of these serious offenses.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130010330
On 17 October 1994, the applicant's unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to recommend discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct commission of a serious offense. His service record does not indicate he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Although a UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for...