Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711039
Original file (9711039.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 7 May 1979.

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

Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 5 September 1984 for AWOL of 4 December 1980 to
24 October 1981 and 28 October 1981 to 31 August 1984.

On 4 September 1984 he requested discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10.

The appropriate authority approved his request on
20 September 1984 and directed that he be issued a UOTHC discharge certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 10 October 1984 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 1 year, 6 months, and 25 days total active service and he had extensive days lost due to AWOL and civilian confinement.

On 3 November 1997 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.

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

 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.

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

4. 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.

5. 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 | CY2013 | 20130020941

    Original file (20130020941.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. a. On 20 April 1988, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his UOTHC discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001263C070206

    Original file (20050001263C070206.TXT) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant provides: a. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief and to excuse failure to timely file. Ronald E. Blakely ______________________ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20050001263 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20050927 TYPE OF DISCHARGE UOTHC DATE OF DISCHARGE 19840502 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR 635-200 C10 DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION GRANT REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001263C070206

    Original file (20050001263C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant provides: a. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief and to excuse failure to timely file.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140021314

    Original file (20140021314.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. There is no evidence he requested an upgrade of his discharge from the Army Discharge Review Board. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076226C070215

    Original file (2002076226C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He further states that he did not want to enlist at the time but had no choice under the circumstances. He also states that he was ill-prepared mentally to be in the Army and did not receive the medical assistance he needed at the time to deal with what he considered a miserable and depressing environment.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091649C070212

    Original file (2003091649C070212.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. 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 Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016231

    Original file (20100016231.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states he returned to the United States from an assignment in Berlin, GE and he had 45 days of leave en route to his new assignment at Fort Lewis, WA. The record shows he reported to Fort Lewis and he was assigned to Company B, 2nd Battalion, 47th Infantry on 4 April 1983.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068507C070402

    Original file (2002068507C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. On 3 January 1985, the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021881

    Original file (20120021881.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 1 February 1984, he consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10 due to charges being preferred against him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. On 5 June 1985, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his UOTHC discharge....

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011420

    Original file (20060011420.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 30 November 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions. ___Ted Kanamine_____ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20060011420 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20070227 TYPE OF DISCHARGE UOTHC DATE OF DISCHARGE 19811218 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR 635-200 Chapter 10 DISCHARGE REASON For the good of the service, in lieu of...