APPLICANT REQUEST: The applicant requests, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was constantly harassed; that he had already requested to be discharged; that no one took him seriously and that going absent without leave (AWOL) was the only way out.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show :
He was born on 21 March 1960. He completed 9 years of formal education. On 25 May 1977, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. His Armed Forces Qualification Test score was 35 (Category III).
On 17 August 1977, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from
2 July to 12 August 1977.
On 19 August 1977, a medical examination found the applicant medically qualified for separation.
On 22 August 1977, 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 by legal counsel 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 30 August 1977, the appropriate authority approved his request and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC. On 8 September 1977, he was discharged, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with a discharge UOTHC. He had
2 months and 7 days of creditable active service and
41 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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.
On 5 December 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's 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 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, in lieu of 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 applicants overall record of military with no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.
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 applicants 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
David R. Kinneer
Executive Secretary
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075694C070403
On 29 August 1977, the applicant was discharged with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 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 is sympathetic to his current medical problems; however, considering the length of his AWOL the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9509894C070209
On 2 August 1977, 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. Failure to file within 3 years may be excused by a correction board if it finds it would be in the interest of justice to do so. DETERMINATION: The subject application was not submitted within the time required.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006624
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). He now requests that his UOTHC discharge be upgraded to a GD. On 19 September 1977, 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074701C070403
On 29 August 1977, the applicant was separated in absentia from the USAR under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UOTHC discharge due to conduct triable by court-martial. Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a UOTHC discharge was considered appropriate. There is no indication that he was any less mature than countless other young men and women who reported for active duty, serving honorably and without incident.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711564
On 12 February 1973, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 14 February to 13 June 1972 and from 17 July 1972 to 4 January 1973. On 5 April 1977, 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. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009537
The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). On 26 April 1978, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed he be discharged in the lowest enlisted grade under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with a UOTHC discharge. Although an honorable discharge (HD) or general discharge (GD) is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053123C070420
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. On 14 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 the service with a discharge UOTHC. The applicant’s previous good service was recognized in his honorable discharge for the period ending 29 December 1977.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052209C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Army policy states that although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014967C071029
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000868
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to a general discharge. There is no evidence the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.