| Mr. | James E. Vick | Chairperson | |
| Mr. | Thomas D. Howard Jr. | Member | |
| Mr. | Curtis W. Barbee Jr. | Member |
| Mr. | Loren G. Harrell | Director | |
| Mr. | Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
2. The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge/under other than honorable conditions (UOHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
3. The applicant states, in effect, that his past military record and 19 years of honorable service warrant an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant’s spouse has included a letter to the Board with his application attesting to the fact that since her marriage to the applicant he has adopted her children from a previous marriage, has been a loving and caring father, and a supportive husband. She also indicates that since his discharge from the Army the applicant has worked hard and has advanced steadily through hard work and dedication. She finishes her letter by stating her belief that her husband would feel better about himself and will have the opportunity to further advance in his career.
4. The applicant’s counsel contends that he has known the applicant for approximately 10 years and knows him to be an honest, hard working business man who wants the best for his country, his family, and his community. He goes on to say it has been his pleasure to work with the applicant on several community projects and he enclosed with his letter to the Board, character reference letters from the applicant’s state senator and his supervisor attesting to the applicant’s honesty, sincerity, integrity, and ability. Counsel closes his letter by stating that if anyone ever deserved a break on his discharge, it would certainly be the applicant.
5. The applicant’s military records shows that he initially entered the Regular Army on 15 June 1972 at the age of 18. Over the course of his career the applicant completed three overseas tours of duty, two in Germany and one in Korea and had advanced through the rank of staff sergeant/E-6. His awards and decorations include: 4 Army Commendation Medals; 5 Good Conduct Medals; the National Defense Service Medal; the Army Service Ribbon; and the Overseas Service Ribbon. The applicant also completed three levels of the Noncommissioned Officer’s Education System (NCOES), through graduation from the noncommissioned officer’s advance course, for which he was awarded the Noncommissioned Officer’s Professional Development Ribbon with numeral 3. The applicant also successfully completed a 2 year tour of duty as a Drill Sergeant at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, after graduating from the Drill Sergeant Course and being awarded the Drill Sergeant Badge.
6. The applicant’s record is free of any record of disciplinary problems prior to beginning his last period of service on 20 February1991 at which time he had completed 18 years, 7 months, and 27 days of honorable service. While the applicant does not elaborate, he cites personal and certain other problems as the reasons for his AWOL from on 4 August 1991 to 9 December 1991. On
12 December 1991 a court-martial charge of AWOL was preferred against the applicant for the period indicated above and after consulting with counsel, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. On 23 January 1992 the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request and directed he be discharged with a UOHC. Accordingly, on 3 February 1992 the applicant was discharged after completing 7 months and 9 days of service and accruing 125 days of time lost due to AWOL on his current enlistment. The applicant had completed a total of 19 years, 3 months, and 14 days of active military service at the time of his discharge.
7. 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. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate; however, an honorable or general discharge is authorized
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with the applicable regulations. There is no indication that the request was made under duress, or that the discharge process contained procedural errors that could have jeopardized his rights.
2. While the offense of AWOL is not condoned by the Board, consideration should be given to the fact that that it was strictly a military infraction and not an otherwise a serious offense against society; in addition, by all indications it was an aberration from the applicant’s normal good conduct caused by personal problems. The overall quality of the applicant’s last period of service does not warrant recharacterization of his discharge. However, in view of the honorable nature of the preponderance of his total service, the applicant’s honorable discharge of 19 February 1991 should be considered a complete and unconditional separation. To do otherwise would work an injustice upon him and his heirs by permanently attaching a stigma to his total military service, and possibly denying them the right to certain VA benefits when the overwhelming majority of his service was honorable.
3. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and in recognition of his previous years of good service, it would be appropriate and proper to consider his honorable discharge of 19 February 1991 as a complete and unconditional separation from military service. The applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was eligible for a complete and unconditional separation from the military service at the time of his honorable discharge on 19 February 1991.
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
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051441C070420
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 | CY1996 | 9608731C070209
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 applicants 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 | CY1997 | 199706332
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 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015090C071029
On 17 June 1991, the applicant was discharged with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 17 June 1991; therefore, the time for the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073643C070403
On 10 February 1982, after serving as a SSG/E-6 for almost 5 years, he was promoted to sergeant first class/E-7 (SFC/E-7), which is the highest rank and pay grade he held while serving on active duty. On 23 May 2002, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) convened to consider the applicant’s advancement on the Retired List, and it denied advancement on the Retired List based on the applicant’s general court-martial conviction and the resultant sentence which included his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062624C070421
The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted and entered active duty on 23 February 1968. However, a first endorsement to the applicant’s 15 January 1975 request for discharge for the good of the service, states that the applicant was allegedly AWOL from 2 January 1974 to 6 January 1975, and was being recommended for discharge with issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The Board is cognizant of the applicant’s prior good service and his 30 months of Vietnam service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | AR20110003308
Applicant Name: ????? A medical proceeding, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate medical authority within six months of the Soldiers initial entrance on active duty, that the condition would have permanently or temporarily disqualified the Soldier for entry into the military service had it been detected at that time, and the medical condition does not disqualify the Soldier from retention in the service under the provisions...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017269
p. She should never have been charged with a crime. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. There is no evidence showing she applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgraded of her discharge.
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 | CY2008 | 20080009936
The applicant's military service records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 May 1986. CAL ARNG Form 614-10 (Letter of Notification Unexcused Absence) dated 21 July 1991 notified the applicant that unit attendance records showed he was absent from the scheduled unit training assemblies on 19, 20, and 21 July 1991 for a total of 5 unit training assemblies. ___________X______________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings...