Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050006052
Original file (20050006052.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         19 January 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050006052


      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.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Judy L. Blanchard             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John Infante                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. William F. Crain              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Gerald J. Purcell             |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect that he would like to have his
discharge upgraded.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his wife needed to have surgery
he requested leave on two occasions and his leave request was turned down
and due to severe depression he went absent with leave (AWOL).

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored letter in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or
injustice, which occurred on 20 November 1975, the date he was separated
from active duty service.  The application submitted in this case is dated
14 April 2005.

2.  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 allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant’s record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army on
20 June 1974.  He completed the required training and was awarded military
occupational specialty 13B10 (Field Artillery Basic).  The highest grade he
attained was private pay grade E-2.

4.  On 3 November 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the
applicant for being AWOL from 30 May to 15 October 1975.

5.  On 4 November 1975, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was
advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, the effects of
a discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) and of the rights
available to him.  The applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the
good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request for
discharge, he acknowledged that he was guilty of the charge against him or
of a lesser included offense therein contained which also authorizes the
imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He further stated
that under no circumstances did he desire further rehabilitation, for he
had no desire to perform further military service.  He also stated his
understanding that if his discharge request was approved, he could be
deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many
or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA),
and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under
both Federal and State law.  He further indicated that he understood that
he could encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of a
UOTHC.

6.  On 20 November 1975, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
request for discharge and directed that he be issued an Undesirable
Discharge Certificate.  On the same day, the applicant was discharged
accordingly.  The separation document (DD Form 214) he was issued confirms
he completed 1 year and 2 days of creditable active military service and
accrued 152 days of time lost due to AWOL.

7.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  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 discharge may at
any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for
discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
An undesirable discharge is normally considered appropriate.

8.  On 6 June 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's
petition to upgrade his discharge.

9.  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.  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) should commence on the date of final action by the ADRB.  In
complying with this decision, the ABCMR has adopted the broader policy of
calculating the 3-year time limit from the date of exhaustion in any case
where a lower level administrative remedy is utilized.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contentions were carefully considered and found to have
insufficient merit in this case.  There is no evidence in his military
record nor did the applicant submit any evidence in support of his
allegation.  Therefore, given the circumstances in this case and his
overall undistinguished record of service, there is insufficient evidence
to support his request at this time.

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was charged with the
commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive
discharge. After consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily
requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  All
requirements of law and regulation were met, the rights of the applicant
were fully protected throughout the separation process and his discharge
accurately reflects his overall record of short and undistinguished
service.

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily
appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to
submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

4.  Records show the applicant exhausted his administrative remedies in
this case when his case was last reviewed by the ADRB on 6 June 1980.  As a
result, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction or any
error or injustice to this Board expired on 5 June 1983.  However, the
applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not
provided a compelling explanation or evidence to show that it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse failure to timely file in this case.


BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JI ___  ___WFC    __GJP __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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.
2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




                                  _____John Infante  ______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR                                      |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/01/19                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100743C070208

    Original file (2004100743C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be changed to a medical discharge. On 21 July 1975, he went AWOL and remained absent until he was returned to military control at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, on 10 August 1975, where charges were preferred against him for the AWOL offenses. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against them or of a lesser included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040007747C070208

    Original file (20040007747C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 1 August 1975, the applicant’s commander submitted a request to discharge her under the provisions of the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations). On 6 August 1975, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation to administratively separate the applicant and directed she receive an general (under honorable conditions) discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 for...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040007877C070208

    Original file (20040007877C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded. On 10 August 1989, he was discharged with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. There is no evidence in the applicant's service records and the applicant has provided no evidence that supports his contention that his commander made things hard for him in his company.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050006545C070206

    Original file (20050006545C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    This document further shows that at the time of his discharge, he had completed 3 years, 8 months and 3 days of creditable active military service and had accrued 45 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement. There is no indication that the applicant requested an upgrade of his discharge from the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would be in the interest...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088580C070403

    Original file (2003088580C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant is requesting correction of an error or injustice which occurred on 30 September 1976, the date his undesirable discharge (UD) was upgraded to a GD by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB). At the time of the applicant's separation, a UD or a GD was appropriate. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070001357C071108

    Original file (20070001357C071108.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 23 May 1972, the applicant was discharged accordingly. On 1 August 1975 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition for an 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040009570C070208

    Original file (20040009570C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 27 February 1976, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 26 March 1976, the applicant was discharged accordingly. On 8 March 1984, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable and it voted to deny the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000400C070208

    Original file (20040000400C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Prior to the period of service under review, the applicant served honorably in the Regular Army (RA) from 23 December 1968 until he was separated for reenlistment on 9 February 1971. While an honorable discharge or GD may be issued, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate. The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004106580C070208

    Original file (2004106580C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 2 April 1980, the separation authority directed the applicant’s separation under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 with an UOTHC discharge. On 27 May 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), after carefully considering the applicant’s case, determined that his discharge was proper and equitable and denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. The character references provided by the applicant were also considered, but his post service conduct alone is not...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011564C070208

    Original file (20040011564C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 23 August 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive an undesirable discharge. On 24 August 1971, the applicant was discharged accordingly. On 9 January 1975, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable and voted to deny the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.