Title: APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge
Author: +

ABCMR Memorandum of                                                          AC97-11486
Consideration (cont)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he enlisted for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 52B.  The Army changed his MOS to 63B with no training, which would have put the soldiers around him in danger of their lives.  He asked to be released from the service because of a lack of training in a field where soldiers would depend on their vehicles in time of war.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant’s military records show:
On 27 July 1976, he enlisted in the Regular Army for training in MOS 52B (Power Generator Equipment Operator).  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 52B.  On 1 March 1978, MOS 52B was converted/merged into MOS 63B (Power Generator and Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).  On 28 December 1978, the applicant was honorably discharged.  He immediately reenlisted on 29 December 1978 for 6 years.  He received a selective reenlistment bonus in MOS 63B.

The applicant received an Enlisted Evaluation Report (EER) for the period  March - July 1978, during which period he worked in duty MOS 63B.  He received a “Ranks with the very best” rating in the “Is well informed on all phases of assigned duties” block.  His rater noted:  “…has performed all assigned duties in an excellent manner.”  His indorser noted:  “…shown a great deal of technical competence in and around the motor pool.”

On 27 June 1979, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for operating a privately-owned vehicle while drunk.

On 25 October 1979, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for participating in a riot.

On 19 March 1980, the applicant received a mental status evaluation and was found psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action the command deemed appropriate.

On 20 March 1980, the applicant waived his right to a separation medical examination.
On 4 April 1980, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with being absent without leave (AWOL) for the period 9 February to 17 March 1980.

After consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

An unsigned statement is included, apparently an interview with the applicant, wherein it is stated the applicant cited family problems as his reason for going AWOL.  In addition, he was fed up with the military system, i.e., taking physical training, being ordered around, etc.  He wanted out of the service and would go AWOL again until he was discharged.

On 23 April 1980, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 14 May 1980, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 1 year, 3 months and 8 days of creditable active service and had 37 days of lost time. 

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.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations it is concluded:

1.  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 the aforementioned requirement.
2.  The applicant felt secure and confident enough in his duties as a 63B to accept a selective reenlistment bonus to reenlist in it.  His rating officials felt he was doing a good job in his 63B duties.  His disciplinary problems started more than a year after the MOS conversion.

3.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT          

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director