APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was young and immature.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was born on 17 July 1961. He completed 12 years of formal education. On 21 August 1979, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty
55B10 (Ammunition Specialist). The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-3.
On 26 November 1979, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for stealing military clothing and personal effects of a fellow soldier. His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $104 pay, 14 days restriction and extra duty.
On 29 January 1981, the applicant accepted an NJP, under Article 15, UCMJ, for two occasions of failure to repair. His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $100 pay and
14 days extra duty.
On 23 March 1981, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for two specifications of communicating a threat, for being disrespectful and for wrongfully and willfully discharging a firearm.
On 27 March 1981, a mental and a physical evaluation found the applicant fit for retention.
On 6 April 1981, after consulting with legal counsel the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, 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 was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf, but declined to do so.
On 16 April 1981, the appropriate authority approved his request, reduced the applicant to the lowest enlisted grade and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC. On
17 April 1981, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade
E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with a discharge UOTHC. He had completed 1 year, 7 months and 27 days of creditable active service.
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 UOTHC 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, and advisory opinion(s), 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's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.
3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
4. The applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.
5. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicantÂ’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
Karl F. Schneider
Acting Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002083073C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : That at the time of his enlistment and discharge he was immature. On 26 May 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001054289C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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: The Board also noted that he was almost 19 years old when he went AWOL and found no evidence that he was any less mature than other 19-year old soldiers who successfully completed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060613C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072119C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001823
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 23 April 1970, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for AWOL (7 days). On 22 August 1973, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012741
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate. However, the evidence of record does not support his request for an upgrade of his UOTHC discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068593C070402
On 31 January 1983, the approval authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10 and directed that he be separated with a UOTHC discharge in pay grade E-1. The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows that he was separated in absentia on 23 February 1983 under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UOTHC discharge for the good of the service-in lieu of court-martial. On 13 August...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004738C070205
The applicant requests that his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge to honorable. On 1 February 1982, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant's discharge request and directed his reduction to Private E-1, and the issuance of an UOTHC 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,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070796C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001745
On 28 April 1980 after consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 10. On 28 January 1986, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for upgrade of his...