APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he would like to have the chance to reenter into the Army.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was born on 13 June 1966. He completed 12 years of formal education. On 18 September 1986, he enlisted into the Regular Army for 3 years. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 12F10 (Engineer Tracked Vehicle Crewmember). The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-1.
On 7 May 1987, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being absent without leave from 16 March to 5 May 1987.
On 8 May 1987, 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 13 May 1987, a medical examination found the applicant medically fit for retention.
On 18 May 1987, the appropriate authority approved his request and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC. On 17 June 1987, 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 7 months and 11 days of creditable active service and had 48 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 UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.
On 29 August 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicants request for an upgrade of his discharge.
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 consulted with legal counsel, and voluntarily requested separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial.
3. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
4. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
5. 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
Karl F. Schneider
Acting Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017200
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 6 May 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge request and directed the applicant receive an UOTHC discharge and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. There is no evidence showing that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091540C070212
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 MARCH 2004 DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003091540 On 21 May 2003, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078214C070215
The Board considered the following evidence: On 11 July 1990, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant’s case and it determined that his discharge was proper and equitable. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012779C071029
Fields | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The applicant’s contentions and his prior good service have been carefully considered; however, considering the length of his AWOL they provide an insufficient basis on which to grant the relief requested.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004777C070206
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge. On 26 June 1987, the appropriate separation authority approved his request and directed his reduction to Private E-1, and the issuance of a UOTHC discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014416
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to a general discharge. ____________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 | CY2011 | 20110006317
On 16 October 1986, the Commanding General ordered that the letter of reprimand be filed in the performance portion of his Official Military Personnel File. The characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally UOTHC and the evidence shows that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge. ___________X___________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073935C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service), then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006233
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded. The record also shows the applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in him receiving a punitive discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018826
The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate. b. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.