Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711486
Original file (9711486.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES : That he enlisted for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 52B. The Army changed his MOS to 63B with no training, which would have put the soldiers around him in danger of their lives. He asked to be released from the service because of a lack of training in a field where soldiers would depend on their vehicles in time of war.

 EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant’s military records show:
 On 27 July 1976, he enlisted in the Regular Army for training in MOS 52B (Power Generator Equipment Operator). He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 52B. On 1 March 1978, MOS 52B was converted/merged into MOS 63B (Power Generator and Wheel Vehicle Mechanic). On 28 December 1978, the applicant was honorably discharged. He immediately reenlisted on 29 December 1978 for 6 years. He received a selective reenlistment bonus in MOS 63B.
The applicant received an Enlisted Evaluation Report (EER) for the period March - July 1978, during which period he worked in duty MOS 63B. He received a “Ranks with the very best” rating in the “Is well informed on all phases of assigned duties” block. His rater noted: “…has performed all assigned duties in an excellent manner.” His indorser noted: “…shown a great deal of technical competence in and around the motor pool.”

On 27 June 1979, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for operating a privately-owned vehicle while drunk.

On 25 October 1979, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for participating in a riot.

On 19 March 1980, the applicant received a mental status evaluation and was found psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action the command deemed appropriate.

On 20 March 1980, the applicant waived his right to a separation medical examination.
 On 4 April 1980, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with being absent without leave (AWOL) for the period 9 February to 17 March 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 submit a statement in his own behalf.

An unsigned statement is included, apparently an interview with the applicant, wherein it is stated the applicant cited family problems as his reason for going AWOL. In addition, he was fed up with the military system, i.e., taking physical training, being ordered around, etc. He wanted out of the service and would go AWOL again until he was discharged.

On 23 April 1980, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 14 May 1980, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had completed 1 year, 3 months and 8 days of creditable active service and had 37 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.

 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. The applicant felt secure and confident enough in his duties as a 63B to accept a selective reenlistment bonus to reenlist in it. His rating officials felt he was doing a good job in his 63B duties. His disciplinary problems started more than a year after the MOS conversion.

3. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

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 | CY2001 | 2001061591C070421

    Original file (2001061591C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013593

    Original file (20130013593.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed characterization of his service as under other than honorable conditions. The applicant contends that his discharge under other than honorable conditions should be upgraded to general under honorable conditions because he was young and immature and he thought he was doing the right thing when he was AWOL. The evidence of record shows the applicant was charged with being AWOL, he acknowledged being AWOL...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017947

    Original file (20110017947.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The complete charge sheet or the facts and circumstances pertaining to his discharge proceedings in lieu of a trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), are not contained in his available military records. Likewise, there is no evidence to show that there was a breach in his reenlistment contract due to the course length for 91C being changed and that his JAG attorney advised him to go AWOL. ABCMR Record...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014815

    Original file (20100014815.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010457

    Original file (20110010457.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests his Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge; the reason for his discharge be changed to "convenience of the Government; his reentry (RE) code be changed to RE-1; his Separation Program Designator (SPD) code be changed to match the new reason for his discharge; and his completion of the Airborne Course be added to his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). The applicant provides: * his DD Form 214 * four letters of...

  • 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 | CY2014 | 20140008989

    Original file (20140008989.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 29 October 1982 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Records show the applicant had two separate periods of enlistment in the RA during the period of service under review, as follows: * enlisted on 5 July 1978 – honorably discharged...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015506C071029

    Original file (20060015506C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 17 February 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge, and directed he receive an UOTHC discharge. An UOTHC discharge normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. The evidence of record further shows that after being AWOL for more than 800 day, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in his receiving a punitive discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010907

    Original file (20100010907.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 24 April 1980, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued a discharge under other than honorable conditions. Accordingly, on 15 May 1980, the applicant was discharged.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013079

    Original file (20060013079.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no evidence showing that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade to his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 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. ...