Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709373
Original file (9709373.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES : In effect, he needs an upgrade for Veterans Administration medical benefits.

 EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 May 1971 for two years.

He received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, on several occasions for AWOL and misconduct.

Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 15 February 1972 for numerous occasions of AWOL.

On 12 April 1972 he requested discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10, to avoid trial. He acknowledged he understood he may be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished a UD Certificate. He also acknowledged he understood as a result of the issuance of such a discharge he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits, ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA and may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law. He requested and received approval for discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial.

The appropriate authority approved his request and directed that he be issued a UOTHC discharge certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 27 April 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. He was credited with less than 8 months total active service and 91 days lost time due to AWOL and civilian confinement.

On 7 August 1979 he was advised that his application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade was denied by unanimous vote.

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.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.

 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’s 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.

2. Careful consideration has been given to the applicant’s contention. However, his extensive absence for which court-martial charges have been preferred against him is too serious, and his service was too undistinguished, for equitable relief to be appropriate. He acknowledged the loss of benefits when he requested discharge in lieu of court-martial trial.

3. An Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. He has not convinced the Board he deserves an honorable characterization of his service.

4. His UOTHC characterization of service is appropriate. His service was not fully honorable.

5. 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.

6. 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




                                                      Karl F. Schneider
                                                      Acting Director

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709373C070209

    Original file (9709373C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable. Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 27 April 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations it is...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709350C070209

    Original file (9709350C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: He enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 April 1971. Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 22 May 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709350

    Original file (9709350.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT REQUESTS : That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge. Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 22 May 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9508281C070209

    Original file (9508281C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 23 August 1970, the applicant was honorably discharged after serving 2 years 2 months and 18 days of active honorable service. On 23 March 1972, 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. In consideration of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and in recognition of his more than 2 years, of exemplary service, it would be unjust to consider his honorable discharge on 23...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710278

    Original file (9710278.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for AWOL from 22 November 1978 to 9 January 1980. On 15 January 1980 the appropriate authority approved his request and directed that he be discharged UOTHC. He was discharged UOTHC on 27 March 1980 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710278C070209

    Original file (9710278C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: The applicant was ordered to Active Duty on 5 June 1978 as an enlisted man in an Army Reserve status due to unsatisfactory performance in the Reserve. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001928

    Original file (20150001928 .txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to a general discharge (GD). The applicant initially enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 14 November 1967 and served until he was honorably discharged from active duty by reason of expiration term of service on 25 November 1969. On 25 October 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003986

    Original file (20130003986.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 22 December 1976, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition for an upgrade of his discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate. Based on this record of indiscipline, which includes 196 days of lost time and in view of the fact he voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in a punitive discharge, his overall record of service did not support the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085197C070212

    Original file (2003085197C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: On 18 June 1973, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge UOTHC.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060505C070421

    Original file (2001060505C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 4 February 1977, 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: