Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710239
Original file (9710239.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable or general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that his overall performance and good service was not considered.

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

He was born on 22 December 1959. He completed his high school GED. He served honorably in the National Guard from 12 March - 19 June 1980. On 30 July 1981, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 19D (Cavalry Scout).

On 6 July 1983, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 7 - 8 June 1983 and for failing to go to his appoint place of duty on three separate occasions.

The applicant was AWOL from 15 - 15 August 1983.

On 28 September 1983, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for being AWOL from 9 - 20 September 1983.

On 1 October 1983, the applicant missed deployment movement to Fort Drum, NY.

The applicant was AWOL from 1 - 16 October 1983.

The applicant missed deployment movement on 18 October 1983.

The applicant was AWOL from 19 October - 1 November 1983.

The court-martial charges and most of the Chapter 10 discharge packet are missing. The following information was obtained from alternate sources.

On 16 November 1983, 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 apparently submitted a statement in his own behalf.

On 17 November 1983, the applicant’s commanders recommended approval of his request. His company commander recommended a general discharge; his battalion and brigade commanders recommended a discharge UOTHC.

On 1 December 1983, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 8 December 1983, the applicant was discharged in the pay grade E-1, with a discharge UOTHC, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had completed 2 years, 2 months and 28 days of creditable active service and had 43 days of lost time.

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.

On 3 January 1986, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade.

 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. 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.

2. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed 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.

3. The applicant contends that his overall performance and good service was not considered in his discharge. The applicant’s record of Article 15s, AWOLs and missing movements belies this contention by showing that his overall performance was not good.

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

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710239C070209

    Original file (9710239C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 8 December 1983, the applicant was discharged in the pay grade E-1, with a discharge UOTHC, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, discharge 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 concluded: 1. The applicant’s record of Article 15s, AWOLs and missing movements belies this contention by showing that...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004512C070206

    Original file (20050004512C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 16 August 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade, and that he receive an UOTHC discharge. On 26 August 1983, the applicant was discharged accordingly. An UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate for members separated under this provision of the regulation.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100023276

    Original file (20100023276.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army for 2 years on 26 October 1972. A discharge UOTHC is normally appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10; however, the separation authority may direct a general discharge (GD) if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record during the current enlistment.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011781

    Original file (20060011781.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Accordingly, on 3 August 1978, the applicant was discharged with an under other than honorable conditions discharge, under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063909C070421

    Original file (2001063909C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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: However, an Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) Case Report and Directive, dated 15 February 1985, shows the applicant was charged with the above AWOL offense on 28 June 1983.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020598

    Original file (20090020598 .txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040009801C070208

    Original file (20040009801C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 8 March 1984, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for violating a lawful general regulation by borrowing money from trainees on two separate occasions. On 14 March 1986, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s honorable service between 1971 and 1973 is properly documented and recognized in the DD Form 214 he received for this period of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130006620

    Original file (20130006620.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to general. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate. The applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, even after appropriate and proper consultation with legal counsel, indicates he wished to avoid trial by court-martial and the punitive discharge he might have received.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014416

    Original file (20130014416.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to a general discharge. ____________x_______________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064698C070421

    Original file (2001064698C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 25 November 1987, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for upgrade of his discharge. The applicant’s contention that his command violated his medical profile and denied his request to change his MOS is not supported by the available evidence of record.