APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That his company commander would not provide him any help with his personal problems. In support of his request, he provides character reference from his employer and minister.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was involuntarily ordered to active duty for unsatisfactory participation from the Alabama Army National Guard on 31 May 1979. He was discharged at his own request on 25 February 1980 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had 230 days of lost time.
On 31 May 1979 his unit reported him AWOL and he was subsequently dropped from the rolls as a deserter.
On 16 January 1980 he was apprehended by civilian authorities in Texas and returned to military control.
Charges were preferred against him on 25 January 1980 for AWOL from 31 May 1979 to 16 January 1980 in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. Thereafter, he consulted with counsel and submitted a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. He was also evaluated psychiatrically and cleared for separation.
On 12 February 1980 the appropriate authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he receive a discharge UOTHC.
On 18 December 1996 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicants request to upgrade his discharge.
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.
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. The applicant chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial. Although he may now feel that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.
2. There is no evidence of record to substantiate the applicant's claim that military authorities were aware of his alleged personal problems.
3. While the Board has taken cognizance of the applicant's apparent good post-service conduct, as described in the letters supporting of his request, this factor alone does not warrant the relief requested.
4. In view of the foregoing, there appears to be 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 | CY2005 | 20050013650C070206
The applicant requests that his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge. At the time of the applicant’s separation, the regulation provided for the issuance of an UOTHC discharge. There is no evidence in the available records nor did the applicant provide any documentation that he was told if he was AWOL for 75 days that he would be separated "for the good of the service."
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068671C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 20 October 1980, the separation authority directed that the applicant be reduced to pay grade E-1 and separated with a UOTHC discharge. The applicant expressed that he was experiencing personal problems after he returned from being AWOL, however, there is no evidence that he sought assistance through his chain of command prior to going AWOL.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004104989C070208
d. The applicant's failure to timely file her request for correction of her military records should be excused because of her mental condition. On 12 February 1980, the applicant went AWOL from her unit in Germany. Army policy states that although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014659
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 30 May 1980, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service, and directed the applicant receive an UOTHC discharge. The record also shows the applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in his receiving a punitive discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002083254C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. There is no evidence in the available records to indicate that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017778
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. He was credited with completing 4 months and 26 days of active service and time lost from 13 November 1979 through 20 January 1980, 17 through 21 May 1980, and 23 May through 14 July 1980.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011246
The two periods of AWOL and the NJP's noted in the unit commander's comments are not recorded elsewhere in official record. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, states that a general discharge (GD) is a separation under honorable conditions issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not so meritorious as to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100030049
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests a discharge upgrade. After being AWOL 196 days the applicant returned to military control at the Personnel Control Facility (PCF), Fort Bragg, NC.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021578
The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015312C071029
On 24 March 1980, the applicant was discharged accordingly. 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; however, the separation authority may issue...