Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711560
Original file (9711560.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that when he was in the Army in the early 70s he wanted out so badly he would have done just about anything to obtain his freedom. A friend of a friend stole a record player, gave it to him, and then he told the commander he had stolen it. Since that time he has changed. He is now the president of a local union, he has worked for 18 years with the mentally retarded, and he is also active helping elect political candidates who help the retarded people of his state. He is not asking for an honorable discharge, but he feels that his actions and way of life these past few decades have merited at least a chance of getting a general discharge. He provides letters of support from his state senator, his union, and the chief executive officer of one of the state’s Regional Human Services Center.

 EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant’s military records show:

He was born on 24 November 1952. He completed 12 years of formal education. On 29 November 1972, he was inducted into the Army for 2 years. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 12A (Pioneer).

On 16 July 1973, the applicant made the following replies in answer to a military police investigator’s questions: Q: “Why did you steal the stereo equipment?” A: “I was trying to impress and please my wife.” Q: “Why did you accuse _____ of stealing the stereo equipment?” A: “I was a little upset with him. He was acting as if he was courting my wife.”
 On 14 August 1973, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with stealing stereo equipment, value of about $337 (the PX value of a new stereo).
On or about 21 September 1973, 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 submitted no statement in his own behalf.

On 25 September 1973, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 19 October 1973, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge UOTHC, 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 10 months and 21 days of creditable active service and had no 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's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3. The Board has taken cognizance of the applicant’s commendable post-service conduct; however, this factor does not warrant the relief requested.

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 | CY2013 | 20130019427

    Original file (20130019427.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. After consulting with counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. a. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018145

    Original file (20090018145.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory, but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Additionally, there is no evidence in his record that shows he ever stated he was innocent of the charges that were pending against him. Instead, he submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial and as part of his request, he admitted that he was guilty of the pending charges.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013574

    Original file (20100013574.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to a general discharge (GD). The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant upon his discharge confirms he was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with a UOTCH Discharge Certificate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016357

    Original file (20100016357.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate. There is insufficient substantive evidence on which to base a discharge upgrade in this case.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000898

    Original file (20090000898.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). A UOTHC discharge normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial.

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600850

    Original file (MD0600850.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Service 2) (2)Letter from Applicant, dtd March 27, 2006 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 19891219 - 19900204 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 19900205 Date of Discharge: 19960701 Length of Service (years, months,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02180

    Original file (BC-2006-02180.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 27 August 1984 under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administration Separation of Airman (request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial), with an UOTHC discharge. On 27 Aug 84, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, with a reason for separation of Request for discharge in lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, with service characterized as UOTHC. Exhibit B.

  • AF | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070001430

    Original file (AR20070001430.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 07 Mos, 22 Days ????? Legal Basis for Separation: 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 a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070001430aC071031

    Original file (AR20070001430aC071031.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 14 December 2005, the separation authority approved the discharge with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Legal Basis for Separation: 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 a discharge for the good of the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100029607

    Original file (20100029607.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 July 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100029607 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) 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.