2. The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge.
3. The applicants military records show that he was born on 9 May 1953. He completed 10 years of formal education but later completed his high school GED. On 10 June 1971, he enlisted in the Regular Army for three years. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 16B (Missile Crewman).
4. The applicant was promoted to grade Specialist Four. Three non-commissioned officer efficiency reports on file gave him all excellent ratings on two reports and all outstanding ratings on one report. He received a letter of commendation. He volunteered for service in Vietnam (but was told that, as the war was winding down, he was not needed) and for service in Israel during the Arab-Israeli war (but was told no U.S. troops were involved). Aside from one Article 15 for a minor infraction, the applicant had no record of disciplinary actions until he went AWOL.
5. He was honorably discharged on 29 June 1972 for the purpose of immediately reenlisting on 30 June 1972 for 4 years.
6. On 10 September 1971, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to go to his appointed place of duty - muster formation. His imposed punishment was 14 days extra duty and restriction.
7. On 17 January 1975, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.
8. On 21 January 1975, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 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 submitted a statement in his own behalf wherein he stated, in effect, that he had to go AWOL to try to make his marriage work. He had to make a choice between the Army and his wife and child. Since being AWOL, he has reconciled with his wife and he feels remaining in the service would only undo that which he has done in the past year.
9. The Chapter 10 paperwork may have been lost at this point, as there is no evidence in the records to explain the following time delays.
10. On 9 May 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL 15 February 1974 to 15 January 1975.
11. On 23 May 1975, the appropriate authority approved his request and directed he receive a discharge UOTHC.
12. On 19 June 1975, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge UOTHC. He had completed 2 years, 1 month and 1 day of creditable active service and had 334 days of lost time.
13. 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 under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. If warranted, however, the discharge authority may direct an honorable or general discharge. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions of an individual whose military record is not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A member will not necessarily be denied an honorable discharge solely by reasons of a specific number of convictions by courts-martial or actions under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It is the pattern of behavior and not the isolated instance which should be considered the governing factor in determination of character of service to be awarded.
14. There is no evidence the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. From a purely legal standpoint, the applicants discharge from service was accomplished in accordance with applicable laws and regulations in effect at the time of his separation.
2. While the conduct which led to the applicants separation cannot be condoned, it must be noted that until he went AWOL the applicant had a commendable military record.
3. Although the applicant failed to apply to this board within the time required, it would nonetheless be fair and equitable to upgrade the applicants discharge UOTHC to a general discharge in consideration of the guidelines given in Army Regulation 635-200 for determining characterization of service.
4. In view of the foregoing, it would be appropriate to correct the applicants records as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was given a general discharge from the Army on 19 June 1975, under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service.
2. That the individual concerned be issued a General Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 19 June 1975, denoting a general discharge in lieu of the discharge UOTHC now held by him.
3. That the individual concerned be issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting the aforementioned corrections.
BOARD VOTE:
GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
CHAIRPERSON
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707026
On 19 June 1975, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge UOTHC. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions of an individual whose military record is not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was given a general discharge from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007634
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to general. There is no evidence he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070009411C080407
An UOTHC discharge normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial; however, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an UD. However, it does confirm he was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge, and that he voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in his receiving a punitive discharge. The evidence of record...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057770C070420
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075308C070403
On 30 April 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded 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: There is no evidence to show that he made his command or any other agency aware of any personal problems or that he attempted to resolve his problems in an administratively acceptable manner (e.g., a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100015315
On 11 March 1977, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him. On 18 March 1977, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be discharged UOTHC. On 18 May 1979, the Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071854C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: He stated that he was proud of his Vietnam service but was ashamed of the conduct which led to his court-martial and to his present situation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003742
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The applicant has provided no evidence other than his self-authored statement that the circumstances regarding his personal problems were the reasons he committed the offenses which led to his discharge. Therefore, he has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record that the actions taken in his case were in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015090C071029
On 17 June 1991, the applicant was discharged with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service 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. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 17 June 1991; therefore, the time for the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606774C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 24 June 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 6 to 22 June 1975 and for breaking restriction. On 18 July 1975, 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.