Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711564
Original file (9711564.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he has been trying for 20 years to get his discharge changed. He hopes that it can be changed to a discharge under honorable conditions.

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

He was initially inducted on 3 February 1959 and was honorably separated on 2 February 1961. He reenlisted in the Regular Army on 21 February 1961 and was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List on 7 July 1969. He reenlisted in the Regular Army on 4 January 1971.

During his three periods of service, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment on nine occasions for offenses such as absenting himself from his place of duty; being absent without leave (AWOL); and disobeying a lawful order.

On 9 October 1966, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of violating a lawful general regulation by being absent from his unit’s compound.

On 18 April 1967, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of absenting himself from his unit.

On 12 February 1973, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 14 February to 13 June 1972 and from 17 July 1972 to 4 January 1973. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months, to forfeit $200 pay for 6 months and to be reduced to pay grade E-1.

On 15 February 1977, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.

On 15 February 1977, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with AWOL for the period 26 October 1976 to 14 February 1977.

On 16 February 1977, 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.

His battalion and brigade commanders recommended disapproval of the applicant’s request and recommended he be tried by a special court-martial empowered to adjudge a bad conduct discharge.

On 23 March 1977, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request and directed he receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 5 April 1977, 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 15 years, 3 months and 3 days of creditable active service and had 465 days of lost time plus 41 days of lost time subsequent to his normal expiration term of service.

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. The type of discharge given was appropriate considering his two periods of extended AWOL on that enlistment.

3. 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 | CY2002 | 2002075521C070403

    Original file (2002075521C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered the following evidence: On 3 April 1972, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, discharge 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 regulations, it is concluded:

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009773

    Original file (20090009773.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). His record is void of a DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) covering his first period of active duty service from 16 March 1971 through 29 March 1972. The record does include a DD Form 214 that shows on 13 March 1978 he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060505C070421

    Original file (2001060505C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 4 February 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge. 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:

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081847C070215

    Original file (2002081847C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant was AWOL from his unit from 9-10 December 1974. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002081847SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20030722TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE19770328DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200, Chap 10 DISCHARGE REASONA71.00BOARD DECISION(DENY)REVIEW AUTHORITYISSUES 1.144.71002.3.4.5.6.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100015315

    Original file (20100015315.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 11 March 1977, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him. On 18 March 1977, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be discharged UOTHC. On 18 May 1979, the Army...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008432

    Original file (20080008432.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 August 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080008432 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 14 February 1978, the applicant was separated with a UOTHC discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072607C070403

    Original file (2002072607C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a more favorable discharge. On 2 March 1978, his counsel submitted a request in the applicant’s behalf, requesting that his request for discharge be withdrawn.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016415

    Original file (20140016415.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to honorable. There is no evidence that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate, but the separation authority may direct an honorable or a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record and if the Soldier's record is so meritorious that any...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056162C070420

    Original file (2001056162C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant submitted a request for an upgrade of his discharge to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) and on 17 October 1977, the ADRB upgraded his discharge to general, under honorable conditions under the criteria of the Department of Defense Discharge Review Program (Special) in...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069737C070402

    Original file (2002069737C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 April 1974 and reenlisted with a waiver for 11 days of lost time on 31 July 1974, for a period of 3 years. The appropriate authority (a brigadier general) approved his request for discharge on 31 January 1977 and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions.