Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016810
Original file (20140016810.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  28 May 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140016810 


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 (UD) be upgraded. 

2.  The applicant states his discharge is inequitable because it was based on a civilian conviction.  Other than 6 months stockade time, there were no other adverse actions.  He acted rashly and irresponsibly back then.  As a mature man now, he is proud of his time in the Army and proud to have served this country.  He would like to erase the negativity of the type of discharge he received.

3.  The applicant provides no supporting documentation.

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 January 1974, completed training, and was awarded the military occupational specialty 12C (Bridge Specialist).

3.  The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) as follows –

* 1 April 1974 for dereliction of duty 
* 4 November 1974 for sleeping on guard duty 
* 7 January 1975 for disobeying a direct order

4.  On 26 July 1974, a special court-martial found the applicant guilty of failure to obey a lawful order and failure to go to his place of duty.

5.  On 25 August 1975, the applicant was arrested by civilian authorities and charged with robbery.  

6.  On 17 October 1975, he was found guilty by a civilian court of robbery and sentenced to not less than 3 years or more than 20 year of confinement.

7.  The applicant was discharged on 17 February 1976 with a UD under Army Regulation 635-206 for a conviction by a civilian court of an offense for which the authorized punishment under the UCMJ included confinement of 1 year or more. He had 1 year, 5 months, and 29 days of creditable service and 221 days of lost time.

8.  On 20 May 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge and did not deem it appropriate to change his narrative reason for discharge.

9.  Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Misconduct), then in effect, provided, in pertinent part, that an enlisted member who was convicted by a civilian court of an offense for which the authorized punishment under the UCMJ included confinement of 1 year or more was to be considered for elimination.  The requirement for a board of officers could be waived by the separation authority provided the individual concerned was physically in civil custody at the time.  When such separation was warranted an UD was considered appropriate.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), sets forth the purpose and policies for enlisted personnel separations.  It outlines the criteria for characterization of service as follows:
	a.  an honorable discharge (HD) is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization of service is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty.  

	b.  a general discharge (GD) is a separation under honorable conditions issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not so meritorious as to warrant an honorable discharge.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

2.  The applicant's service, in addition to the civilian conviction for robbery, was marred with the three NJP's and the special court-martial.

3.  The mere passage of time is insufficient in and of itself to warrant a change of the applicant's discharge, especially in light of the fact that his military record is devoid of significant service.

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)                                         AR20140016810



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140016810



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003099

    Original file (20140003099.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 31 March 1975, the applicant was advised in writing of being recommended for elimination from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Misconduct) due to his conviction by civil authorities on the charge of robbery. Item 44 (Time Lost Under Section 972, Title 10, U.S. Code (USC) and Subsequent to Normal Date of Expiration of Term of Service) of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows the following: * AWOL – 11 March...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002012

    Original file (20120002012.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 2 May 1975, the applicant's commander advised him of his intent to recommend his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Misconduct), by reason of his conviction and sentence by a civil court. He understood that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in the event that a general discharge under honorable conditions were issued to him. Headquarters, 1st Corps Support Command, memorandum for record, dated 7...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050014826C070206

    Original file (20050014826C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 17 June 1975, the applicant’s unit commander submitted a recommendation for the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of paragraph 33a of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations), by reason of civil conviction. The applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 21 December 1976 under the provision of section VI of Army Regulation 635-206, by reason of civil conviction. There is no evidence that the applicant applied for the Army Discharge Review Board for...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013754C071029

    Original file (20060013754C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 31 July 1978, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3-year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017885

    Original file (20110017885.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 20 December 1974, the unit commander notified the applicant of his recommendation for his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Misconduct) by reason of misconduct for conviction for robbery by a Republic of Korea Civil Court on 19 July 1974. __________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 | CY2005 | 20050013625C070206

    Original file (20050013625C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel states that this is the applicant's third request for correction of his discharge records. The applicant was discharged without a hearing. The applicant was discharged on 23 May 1975.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013249

    Original file (20090013249.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's military service records contain no evidence that he suffered from mental health issues. There is no evidence of record, and the applicant provides insufficient evidence, to show that he suffered from mental health issues at the time of his acts of misconduct while serving in the U.S. Army. The applicant's military service records show that prior to his civil conviction and confinement, in the first 14 months of his military service, he received NJP on four separate...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084226C070212

    Original file (2003084226C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 12 April 1976, the applicant's commander submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to conviction by civil authorities. Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, for misconduct – conviction by civil authorities. There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040009110C070208

    Original file (20040009110C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 August 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20040009110 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. James B. Gunlicks | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that, on 2 October 1974, he was discharged with...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006063

    Original file (20090006063.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The available records do not show any significant acts of achievement or valor during his military service. On 11 April 1974, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge and a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 after completing 1 year, 9 months, and 11 days of creditable active service with 99 days of lost time. On 14 March 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request...