Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051914C070420
Original file (2001051914C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 2 August 2001
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001051914

         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun Director
Mr. Robert J. McGowan Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Raymond J. Wagner Chairperson
Ms. Barbara J. Ellis Member
Mr. John P. Infante Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. 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.

         The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)


APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES: In a 5-page statement, that he was unjustly court-martialed for assault on a fellow soldier because he had wrestled against his company commander in a wrestling tournament and won. During his victory, he gave his commander a black eye and he [commander] wanted to get even with him. The assault was nothing more than an accident between two friends during horseplay, but his captain used it as a pretext to retaliate for the wrestling loss. Court-martial charges were preferred against him, but he was not worried because he knew the victim [his friend] would tell the truth. Unfortunately, the victim was transferred before the trial and did not testify. After his conviction, he was reassigned to another installation and, there, a sergeant didn't like him. One day he entered the barracks to see the new beer machine [he didn't live in the barracks]. The sergeant, who was on duty as the Charge-of-Quarters, ordered him to sweep the halls. He did as he was told, then quickly left the barracks and departed the unit area by automobile. The sergeant followed him in his car and rammed the applicant's vehicle forcing him to stop. The applicant got out of his car and ran, but the sergeant caught him and threw him to the ground. He [applicant] called for the Military Police, but because he was black and the sergeant was white, he was the one who went to jail. In jail, he was asked if he wanted to get out of the Army and he said that he did.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 12 November 1974. He completed basic combat training at Fort Ord, California and was transferred to Fort Lee, Virginia for advance individual training (AIT) in military occupational specialty (MOS) 76W, Petroleum Supply Specialist.

While in AIT, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for a violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for committing an assault upon a fellow soldier on or about 10 February 1975 by striking him with a knife. At a Special Court-Martial, he pleaded not guilty, but was found guilty on 4 April 1975 and sentenced to be reduced to Private (PVT/E-1), and confined at hard labor for 2 months. He was sent to the Area Confinement Facility, Fort Meade, Maryland and then to the US Army Retraining Brigade, Fort Riley, Kansas for service of his sentence.

Upon his release from confinement, the applicant was transferred to Fort Rucker, Alabama, arriving there in June 1975. At Fort Rucker, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, on 13 November 1975, for making a false written statement that he was residing off-post with his family [as opposed to living in the barracks] when his family did not reside in the State of Alabama, and for failing to go to his place of duty. As punishment, he was given a suspended reduction to Private, forfeiture of $80.00, and 14 days of extra duty.

Also at Fort Rucker, court-martial charges were again preferred against the applicant for disobeying a lawful order from his commander to get a haircut; for disobeying the lawful order of a Warrant Officer to report to the Orderly Room; for breaking restriction; and for disobeying the lawful order of a Specialist Five to report to a First Lieutenant in the Orderly Room. On 17 March 1976, he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In so doing, he acknowledged that he was guilty of the charges against him which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, and added that he had no desire for rehabilitation or further military service. He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the UOTHC discharge that he might receive.

The approving authority approved the applicant's request for discharge on 19 March 1976. He was separated on the same date with a UOTHC discharge. He had 1 year, 2 months, and 14 days of creditable service and 54 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 UOTHC discharge 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 this requirement.

2. The record shows that the applicant was convicted of assaulting a fellow soldier; there is no evidence in the record to support the applicant's contention that he accidentally cut the other soldier while engaged in horseplay.

3. The record shows that the applicant was a disciplinary problem at Fort Rucker. He received NJP for falsely claiming that his family resided in the local area in order to live off-post. Court-martial charges were preferred against him for multiple specifications of disobeying orders, and for breaking restriction. His voluntary request for separation under the provisions of AR 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. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

4. The applicant's request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received.

5. There is no indication in the applicant's records that he was the victim of racial prejudice or discrimination.

6. 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

_rjw_____ __bje___ __jpi ___ DENY APPLICATION



                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records




INDEX

CASE ID AR2001051914
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED 20010802
TYPE OF DISCHARGE UOTHC
DATE OF DISCHARGE 19741112
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR 635-200 C10
DISCHARGE REASON A71.00
BOARD DECISION DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY DIRECTOR
ISSUES 1. 110.0000
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100347C070208

    Original file (2004100347C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 26 October 2004 DOCKET NUMBER: AR2004100347 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. On 12 November 1976, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive an undesirable discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. Chapter...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010212

    Original file (20090010212.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's record shows he accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on the following six separate occasions for the offenses indicated: 3 June 1976, for being absent without leave (AWOL) and failing to go at the time prescribed time to his appointed place of duty; 10 December 1976, for being AWOL; 31 March 1977, for wrongfully urinating on the floor of the living quarters of his fellow platoon members and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068280C070402

    Original file (2002068280C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He concluded his statement by asking that the request be granted and that he be discharged with at least a general discharge. Accordingly, on 25 February 1982, the applicant was discharged from service after completing 6 years, 4 months, and 3 days of creditable military service. The applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027868

    Original file (20100027868.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 22 March 1976 nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty (Guard Duty) and for driving while under the influence of alcohol.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | AR20140011632

    Original file (AR20140011632.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. The evidence of record shows he was given a BCD pursuant to an approved sentence of a special court-martial for in conjunction with an unknown person, stealing U.S. currency from a fellow Soldier. His conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000004

    Original file (20110000004.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015892

    Original file (20140015892.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 6 June 1975, the applicant was given an order from his commanding officer to proceed to a site at Fort Bragg and remain there until 8 June 1975. The military vehicle in which he returned to the barracks from the field site had been found abandoned about 30 miles from Fort Bragg. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 19 August 1976.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072626C070403

    Original file (2002072626C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He requested that he be given a general discharge. The ADRB reviewed his medical records and noted that the applicant had been seen for a history of knee problems, both on the day of his injury and for a period of 9 months.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011418

    Original file (20080011418.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 17 March 1972, the applicant's parole was suspended. In accordance with Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records is not empowered to change a court-martial conviction, rather it is only empowered to change the severity of the sentence imposed in the court-martial process and then only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050018219C070206

    Original file (20050018219C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 October 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050018219 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant’s military records are not available to the Board for review. In accordance with Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the Army Board for Correction of...