Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016789
Original file (20140016789.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

	

		BOARD DATE:	  31 March 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140016789 


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 to a general discharge.

2.  The applicant states:

* his command denied him the opportunity to submit a statement on his own behalf in the discharge proceedings
* he also had substance abuse issues and was not allowed treatment or help for this condition

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 26 April 1979 for 3 years.  He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (infantryman).

3.  In December 1979, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for being drunk and disorderly.

4.  In January 1980, NJP was imposed against him for treating a superior noncommissioned officer with contempt and using provoking gestures.

5.  His records are void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge action.  However, his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 23 April 1980 in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10.  He completed 11 months and 29 days of creditable active service.

6.  There is no evidence of record which shows he was diagnosed with alcohol/drug abuse or dependency.

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 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, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

	b.  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 command denied him the opportunity to submit a statement on his own behalf during his discharge proceedings relates to evidentiary and legal matters that could have been addressed and conclusively adjudicated in a court-martial/appellate process.  However, it appears he voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.

2.  He also contends he had substance abuse issues and was not allowed treatment.  However, there is no evidence of record and he provided no evidence that shows he was diagnosed with alcohol/drug abuse or dependency prior to his discharge.  In any case, he could have self-referred for treatment.

3.  The applicant's records are void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge.  It appears that he was charged with the commission of offense(s) punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with a punitive discharge.  Discharges under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant is presumed to have voluntarily, willingly, and in writing requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In doing so, he would have admitted guilt and waived his opportunity to appear before a court-martial.  It is also presumed that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Furthermore, in the absence of evidence showing otherwise, it must be presumed that his final discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service during the period under review.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary 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)                                         AR20140016789



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140016789



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140021130

    Original file (20140021130.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, it appears court-martial charges were preferred against him for being AWOL from 24 June to 5 August 1980 (43 days) and that he subsequently submitted a request for discharge 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. His record contains a DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions), dated 7 August 1980, wherein it stated, "Service member...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120003450

    Original file (20120003450.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His record shows he did not earn any individual awards or decorations during his active duty tenure. 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 discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008949

    Original file (20140008949.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, her record contains the DD Form 214 she was issued that shows she was discharged on 18 April 1980, in the rank of PVT, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10 - for conduct triable by court-martial, with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. There is no evidence she applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within that board's 15-year statute of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017543

    Original file (20140017543.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. However, his record contains the DD Form 214 he was issued that shows he was discharged on 27 May 1980, in the rank/grade of private/E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10 - for conduct triable by court-martial, with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. There is no evidence he applied to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020364

    Original file (20110020364.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, by reason of "admin discharge conduct triable by court-martial." On 1 March 1985, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140009865

    Original file (20140009865.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    c. On 11 August 1980, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions. Each request is individually considered based on the evidence presented. _____________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 | 20130015355

    Original file (20130015355.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge. He returned at 2330 hours and learned the next day that he had been reported as being absent without leave (AWOL) and would be offered a discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002387

    Original file (20120002387.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His discharge packet is not available for review; however, his record contains a DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 29 May 1981 in the rank/grade of private (PV1)/E-1, 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 discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140009210

    Original file (20140009210.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    BOARD DATE: 13 January 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140009210 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge to a general discharge. This form also shows he was issued a separation code of "JFS," which denotes he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021659

    Original file (20130021659.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions to a general discharge. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.