APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his other than honorable discharge (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: No statement was submitted by the applicant.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was born on 18 August 1959. He completed 12 years of formal education. On 9 March 1983, he enlisted into the Regular Army for 4 years. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B10 (Infantryman). The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-5. On 28 February 1984, the applicant requested an extension of his enlistment for a period of 14 months. On
2 March 1984, the applicant request was approved.
On 26 March 1990, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being absent without leave from
25 September to 23 October 1989 and from 15 November 1989 to 26 March 1990.
On 29 March 1990, a medical examination found the applicant medically fit for retention.
On 2 April 1990, 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 15 May 1990, the appropriate authority approved the applicants request, reduced him to the lowest enlisted grade and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC. On
31 May 1990, 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 2 years, 11 months and 6 days of creditable active service and had 157 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. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
On 17 December 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, 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 applicants 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. 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
Karl F. Schneider
Acting Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9609493C070209
On 5 June 1990 the appropriate authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be issued a discharge UOTHC. 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. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074883C070403
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: In order to be granted leave, the applicant had to have submit a signed DA Form 31 (Request and Authority for Leave) which requires that he specify the type of leave, his leave address...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060016603C071029
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 25 April 1990, 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. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001143
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 16 September 2005, the Army Discharge Review Board determined he had been properly discharged and denied his request for a change in the type and nature of his discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC was considered appropriate at the time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022324
The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to a general discharge. There is no evidence to show the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017450
On 6 February 1995, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an honorable discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. c. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100024059
The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). On 4 April 1990, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed the applicant be issued a UOTHC discharge. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120003344
On 5 March 1998, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request of an upgrade of his discharge and determined his discharge had been both proper and equitable. His record of service shows he was AWOL for 108 days when he was returned to military control and he stated this was his second period of AWOL. Based on this record of misconduct, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005442
A DA Form 3286-60/1 (Statement for Enlistment), dated 23 May 1989, shows the applicant selected the enlistment MOS choice option with U.S. Army Airborne training. On 28 September 1990, the applicant was discharged from active duty and he was issued an UOTHC Discharge Certificate based on the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial. There is no evidence showing that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003113
The applicant requests an upgrade of her discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to a general discharge. On 1 March 1991, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC and reduction to pay grade E-1. ___________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...