Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016074
Original file (20140016074.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  19 May 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140016074 


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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to honorable.

2.  The applicant states:

* he didn't get along with his commanding officer
* he served the service members for 28 years as a mover

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

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 4 March 1980 for 3 years.  He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (infantryman).  He served in Korea from 13 June 1980 to 12 June 1981.

3.  He was absent without leave (AWOL) from 1 September 1981 to 15 March 1982.  On 18 March 1982, charges were preferred against him for the AWOL period.

4.  On 19 March 1982, 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.  He acknowledged that by submitting his request for discharge he was guilty of a charge against him that authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He indicated he understood he might be issued a discharge UOTHC, he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, he might be deprived of many or all Army benefits, and he might be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  He acknowledged he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he was issued a discharge UOTHC.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

5.  On 1 April 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.

6.  On 13 May 1982, he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He completed 1 year, 7 months, and 26 days of creditable active service with 195 days of lost time.  His service was characterized as UOTHC.

7.  There is no evidence that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial at any time after the charges have been preferred.  A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate, but the separation authority may direct an honorable or a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record and if the Soldier's record is so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be improper.

	b.  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.

	c.  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.  Since the applicant's record of service included a 195-day AWOL period, his record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.

2.  His 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, chapter 10, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  He had an opportunity to submit a statement in which he could have voiced his concerns and he elected not to do so.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reason for his discharge were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  In view of the foregoing information, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant an upgrade of his 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 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)                                         AR20140016074



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140016074



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008424

    Original file (20100008424.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant’s service record does not indicate he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) 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 this case.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018365

    Original file (20080018365.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged from active duty on 5 April 1982 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service with an UOTHC discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018600

    Original file (20130018600.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). There is no evidence the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060016974

    Original file (20060016974.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s record of service included one nonjudicial punishment and 1047 days of lost time. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge or a general discharge. ___William Crain_____ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20060016974 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20070531 TYPE OF DISCHARGE UOTHC DATE OF DISCHARGE 19820803 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR 635-200 Chapter 10 DISCHARGE REASON For the good of the service BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080019285

    Original file (20080019285.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. At the time of his discharge, he was told he could get his discharge upgraded after a time. There is no evidence of record which indicates the actions taken in his case were in error or unjust; therefore, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016538

    Original file (20090016538.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states that he had two honorable discharges before the UOTHC discharge. There is no evidence of record which indicates the actions taken in his case were in error or unjust, therefore, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge to honorable.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120013295

    Original file (20120013295.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable. On 26 January 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge and directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015756

    Original file (20140015756.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). On 6 May 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge and directed the issuance of a UOTHC discharge. A UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate, but the separation authority may direct an honorable or a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record and if the Soldier's record is so meritorious that any other...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061615C070421

    Original file (2001061615C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 21 June 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed an UOTHC discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051973C070420

    Original file (2001051973C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT STATES : The applicant submitted two applications. He further states that he already had an honorable discharge and that he reenlisted in good faith. On 5 January 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.