Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710536
Original file (9710536.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved
2. The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. He makes no statement.
3. The applicant’s military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 July 1977 for 3 years. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13B (Cannon Crewman). On 20 January 1980, he was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment on 21 January 1980 for 3 years.

4. In October 1980, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for the offense of robbery.

5. On 23 October 1980, 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 elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.

6. On 21 November 1980, the appropriate authority approved his request and directed he receive a discharge UOTHC.

7. On 26 November 1980, he 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 UOTHC discharge. He had completed 3 years, 4 months and 8 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.

8. 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.

9. The VA, in determining qualifications for benefits administered by that agency, generally holds that an individual who accepts a discharge prior to completion of his complete term of obligated service may not be eligible for benefits unless or until the VA determines that the early discharge amounted to a complete and unconditional separation from the service.
 CONCLUSIONS:

 1. The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2. Although it would not be appropriate to change the records to show that the applicant was discharged honorably or under honorable conditions from the reenlistment commencing on 21 January 1980, it appears that his honorable discharge of 20 January 1980 should be considered as having been issued as a complete and unconditional separation.

3. The circumstances of the applicant’s honorable discharge on 20 January 1980 have worked an injustice upon him by depriving him of consideration for certain VA benefits for the preceding period of service.

4. In view of the foregoing, it would be in the interest of justice to correct the applicant’s 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 applicant was eligible for a complete and unconditional separation from the military service at the time of his honorable discharge on 20 January 1980.

2. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

 BOARD VOTE :
GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

 GRANT FORMAL HEARING

 DENY APPLICATION
                                                      CHAIRPERSON
                                                      

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710536C070209

    Original file (9710536C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 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. That all of the Department of the Army...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608664C070209

    Original file (9608664C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Report of Transfer or Discharge, DD Form 214, indicates that the applicant was discharged on 4 April 1983, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a discharge under other than conditions (UOTHC). In consideration of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and in recognition of his more than 7 1/2 years, of good service, it would be unjust to consider his honorable discharge of 8 April...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074429C070403

    Original file (2002074429C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    He was honorably discharged on 26 June 1980 for the purpose of reenlisting on 27 June 1980 for 6 years. It directed that the following statement would be added to all DD Forms 214 without exception: “Member (has) (has not) completed first term of service.” Normally, a member should not be considered to have completed the first full term of active service if separation occurs prior to the end of the initial contracted period of service. That all of the Department of the Army records related...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608731C070209

    Original file (9608731C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 20 September 1988, the applicant was reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and discharged, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with a discharge UOTHC. On 16 August 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. In consideration of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and in recognition of his more than 7 years, of good service, it would be unjust to consider his honorable discharge...

  • 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 | CY1996 | 9608623C070209

    Original file (9608623C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests: that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 19 November 1993, 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 7 1/2 years of good service, it would be unjust to consider his honorable discharge of 8 May...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051441C070420

    Original file (2001051441C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    At this late date the Board will not second-guess the commander’s decision not to grant the applicant 45 days leave or to change the start date of his leave. While the Board takes cognizance of the applicant’s stated personal problems, this factor does not warrant the relief requested and it would not be appropriate to change the records to show that the applicant was discharged honorably from the reenlistment commencing on 14 January 1982. That all of the Department of the Army records...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006645

    Original file (20080006645.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. He also signed a separate Medical Examination for Separation Statement of Option, indicating he did not desire a separation medical examination. Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations, chapter 1, section 3.13(c), provides that, “Despite the fact that no unconditional discharge may have been issued, a person shall be considered to have been unconditionally discharged or released from active military service when the following...

  • 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...