| Mr. Loren G. Harrell | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor Jr. | Member | |
| Mr. James M. Alward | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOHC) discharge be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 30 December 1976 the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years while assigned to Nuremburg, Germany. At the time of his reenlistment the applicant had completed 2 years, 9 months, 9 days of honorable service, attained the rank of specialist/E-4, and held military occupational specialty 12B (Combat Engineer).
The highest rank the applicant held on active duty was sergeant/E-5 which he attained on 27 June 1977; and he earned the National Defense Service Medal and the Good Conduct Medal. The applicant’s record is void of any additional acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition. However, the record does contain a history of disciplinary infractions which includes the applicant’s acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, on four separate occasions.
On 9 December 1977 the applicant accepted an NJP for disobeying a lawful order. His punishment for this offense was a forfeiture of $100.00.
On 28 February 1978 the applicant accepted a second NJP for 10 incidents of falsely and wrongly obtaining telephone services and 1 incident of disobeying a lawful order. The resultant punishment included a reduction in grade to specialist/E-4; forfeiture of $267.00 per month for 2 months; and 30 days of extra duty and restriction.
On 8 August 1978 the applicant accepted another NJP for being AWOL from
22 to 23 July 1978. His punishment included a reduction in grade to private first class/E-3 which was suspended for 30 days and 14 days of extra duty. The suspended reduction was vacated on 30 August 1978.
On 1 December 1978 the applicant accepted his last NJP for two separate incidents of failing to go to his prescribed place of duty. His punishment for these offenses included a reduction in grade to private/E-2; forfeiture of $100.00 which was suspended for 60 days and 14 days of restriction and extra duty.
On 2 January 1979 the applicant’s unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to separate him, under the provisions of chapter 14 , AR 635-200 for misconduct. The unit commander cited the applicant’s frequent occurrences of misconduct. This included a 72 day period of AWOL from 7 May to 19 July 1977; a 3 day AWOL from 5 to 7 May 1978; his record of indebtedness; an incident of operating a vehicle in a reckless manner; quitting a military school without authority; and the applicant’s extensive record of NJP’s, as his reasons for the action.
The applicant acknowledged receipt of the unit commander’s notification, consulted counsel, and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, completed his election of rights. The applicant waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 8 February 1979 the appropriate authority approved the separation action and directed the applicant be discharged and furnished a UOHC discharge. Accordingly, on 16 February 1979 the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 11 months, and 4 days of his current enlistment, a total of 4 years,
8 months, and 13 days of active military service, and accruing 73 days of time lost due to AWOL.
On 11 September 1981 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade to his discharge and found that the discharge process was proper in all respects.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedure for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, and desertion or absence without leave.
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 Board concurs with the findings and conclusions of the ADRB and presumes that the applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations. There is no indication of procedural errors by the ADRB which would tend to have substantially jeopardized the applicant's rights.
2. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation applicable at the time. The reason for and the character of the discharge are commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
3. 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.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's 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
Loren G. Harrell
Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707804C070209
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. On 1 December 1978 the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705684
APPLICANT REQUESTS: The former service member’s (FSM) spouse requests, in effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOHC) be upgraded to honorable. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The FSM’s military records show: On 3 January 1979 the FSM went AWOL from his unit at Fort Hood, Texas.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707861
MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 July 1998 DOCKET NUMBER: AC97-07861 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705684C070209
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any) APPLICANT REQUESTS: The former service members (FSM) spouse requests, in effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOHC) be upgraded to honorable. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The FSMs military records show: The FSM entered the Regular Army on 4 January 1977 for a period of 3 years. On 3 January...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711370
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. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709252
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. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707861C070209
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 | CY1997 | 9709262
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 Board considered the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710378
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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. On 30 October 1980, his commander notified him of his intent to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct-...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709252C070209
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 Board considered the...