APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgrade to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he requested a hardship discharge but before it was approved, he was forced to accept a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 August 1979 for 3 years and was discharged at his own request on 25 July 1988 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The highest pay grade he held was E-2. He had 2750 days of lost time.
On 12 November 1980 he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for three specifications of AWOL and eight specifications of uttering checks without sufficient funds.
On 2 February 1981 he was apprehended and confined by civilian authorities for two misdemeanor counts of extortion. He was convicted on 26 January 1981 and placed on bail pending sentence. He failed to report for sentencing on 23 February 1981.
On 23 February 1981 his unit reported him AWOL and he was subsequently dropped from the rolls as a deserter on 24 March 1981.
On 6 June 1988 he was apprehended by civilian authorities in Ohio and returned to military control the same day.
Charges were preferred against him on 15 June 1988 for AWOL from 23 February 1981 to 6 June 1988 in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. Thereafter, he consulted with counsel and submitted a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.
On 24 June 1988 the appropriate authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed he receive a discharge UOTHC.
On 23 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 applicants record contains no evidence of an application for hardship discharge.
2. The Board notes that he 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, there is no evidence to indicate that his request at the time was made under coercion or duress and no evidence that the discharge he received was improper or unjust.
3. Considering his numerous acts of indiscipline, the issuance of a discharge UOTHC appears appropriate.
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 | CY2001 | 2001060360C070421
On 5 December 1981, the applicant submitted a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) for a hardship discharge. On 11 February 1983, the applicant’s unit commander recommended that his request for discharge be approved with a UOTHC discharge. There is nothing in the applicant's record, and he has provided nothing, that indicates his recruiter promised him he would be allowed to continue his boxing career in the military.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077234C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 4 May 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge. The applicant acknowledged that he could receive an UOTHC discharge in his request for discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077234_C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 4 May 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge. The applicant acknowledged that he could receive an UOTHC discharge in his request for discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010211
On 14 June 1988, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he receive a UOTHC discharge. The DD Form 214 that was issued to the applicant shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial and that he received a UOTHC discharge. There is no evidence showing the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087877C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 19 February 1981, the approval authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200 and directed that he be separated with a UOTHC discharge in pay grade E-1. Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a UOTHC discharge was considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070012462C080407
There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. The regulation stipulates that an UOTHC discharge normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. The evidence of record further shows the applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in his receiving a punitive discharge, and that he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068466C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he began using heroin while in the military and "was immediately addicted to this drug." On 30 January 2002 the Army Discharge Review Board unanimously denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016360
The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general discharge (GD). The applicant's records contain a record of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being AWOL from 2 September 1980 to 8 January 1981, for which he received a forfeiture of $250 pay for 2 months, and 14 days of extra duty. The applicant requests a discharge upgrade and states, in effect, he had to go AWOL to keep his son...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072540C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Although the discharge packet is not of record, the evidence of record shows that the applicant again requested that he be discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016539
He acknowledged he had been advised of and understood his rights under the UCMJ, he could receive a discharge UOTHC which would deprive him of many or all of his benefits as a veteran, and he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received a discharge UOTHC. In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge against him or to a lesser-included offense that also authorized the...