Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710278
Original file (9710278.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, he was having personal problems and that the military had become an intricate part of the system and that he was put into the hospital in which he was to be discharged. He left Fort Gordon, Georgia, and
Fort Campbell, Kentucky on his own recognizance to go to Fort Knox, Kentucky to be discharged.
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.

He received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, on 6 July 1977 for AWOL 4-5 June 1977.

Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for AWOL from
22 November 1978 to 9 January 1980.

On 15 January 1980 he requested discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10, to avoid trial by court-martial. He received counsel and acknowledged he understood he may be discharged UOTHC and furnished an Undesirable Discharge 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.

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. He was credited with 19 months, and 28 days total active service and 90 days lost time due to AWOL.

His petition to the Army Discharge Review Board on 21 April 1997 was returned without consideration. He failed to file within the 15 year statute of limitations. The basis for the petition was for medical reasons.

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.
An opinion was requested and received in this case from Army Review Boards Agency Medical Advisor (COPY ATTACHED). He opined the applicant is not entitled to medical retirement or discharge and there is no medical reason to change discharge.
DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion, 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




                                                      Loren G. Harrell
                                                      Director

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | CY2012 | 20120009537

    Original file (20120009537.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). On 26 April 1978, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed he be discharged in the lowest enlisted grade under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with a UOTHC discharge. Although an honorable discharge (HD) or general discharge (GD) is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021019

    Original file (20090021019.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 18 July 1980, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed he receive a UOTHC discharge. His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement that would have supported the issuance of an HD or a GD by the separation authority at the time of his discharge or that would support an upgrade to an HD or a GD at this time.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016874

    Original file (20080016874.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charges against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a discharge under other honorable conditions. The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time of his discharge shows he was discharged for the good of the service with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions. Although an...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009287

    Original file (20100009287.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to general. On 7 November 1978, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions. There is no policy, regulation, directive or law that provides for the automatic upgrade of a less than honorable discharge from military service, regardless of how much time has passed.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000582

    Original file (20150000582.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his character and reason for discharge be upgraded from an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) in lieu of trial by court-martial discharge to an honorable discharge due to physical disability. Also on 8 October 1980, after consulting with counsel and being advised of this rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606862C070209

    Original file (9606862C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 8 September 1978, 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. On 3 June 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (AR 15-185, paragraph...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014659

    Original file (20080014659.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 30 May 1980, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service, and directed the applicant receive an UOTHC discharge. The record also shows the applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in his receiving a punitive discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019032

    Original file (20110019032.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 26 April 1978, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. On 8 May 1978, the approving authority accepted the applicant's request for discharge and directed his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with a UOTHC character of service. There is no record to show the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003420C070208

    Original file (20040003420C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Michael J. Flynn | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 9 March 1978, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive an UOTHC discharge. On 14 April 1978, the applicant was discharged accordingly.