| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Stephanie Thompkins | Analyst |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Upgrade of his discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, he would like his discharge upgraded so he can receive his benefits.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years as an private, pay grade E-1 on 14 July 1980.
He attained the rank of specialist, pay grade E-4 on 14 September 1982.
He was reported absent without leave (AWOL) from 7 April to 4 May 1983.
On 17 May 1983 he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for AWOL. His punishment included reduction to private first class, pay grade E-3, forfeiture of pay and extra duty.
He was reduced to E-3 on 17 May 1983.
On 2 November 1983, he was charged with two specifications of absence from his unit from 5 October through 28 October 1983 and 1 November through 2 November 1983.
On 3 November 1983, his command recommended trial by special court-martial empowered to adjudge a Bad Conduct Discharge.
On 7 November 1983, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service. He elected not submit a statement in his own behalf and acknowledged he understood the possible effect of an Under Other Than Honorable (UOTHC) discharge and the results of the issuance of such a discharge, including the loss of Veteran’s benefits.
On 16 November 1983, the appropriate authority approved his request for discharge, directed that a UOTHC discharge be furnished and reduction to pay grade E-1.
He was separated on 21 November 1993, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had a total of 3 years, 1 month and 1 day net active service.
On 27 May 1988, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge.
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 UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.
Paragraph 3-7 of this regulation provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization 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, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.
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 view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge. He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.
2. The Board has noted his contention that he would like to receive his benefits. However, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court martial and acknowledged he understood he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits and maybe ineligible for many and all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of the request.
3. The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 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. 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.
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
_wtm____ _jtm____ _aao____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001052904 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010731 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19931121 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083573C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He states, “but still could not control it.” In addition, he states, that he was absent without leave (AWOL) for a couple of days and subsequently put out of the military. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001000
x The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056966C070420
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710239
On 8 December 1983, the applicant was discharged in the pay grade E-1, with a discharge UOTHC, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. : 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 record of Article 15s, AWOLs and missing movements belies this contention by showing that his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088031C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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. On 3 January 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070011747C080407
David W. Tucker | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. 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. Although the separation authority may authorize an honorable discharge (HD) or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710239C070209
On 8 December 1983, the applicant was discharged in the pay grade E-1, with a discharge UOTHC, 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: 1. The applicants record of Article 15s, AWOLs and missing movements belies this contention by showing that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050008625C070206
On 4 August 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive an UOTHC discharge. On 22 August 1983, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010461C070208
On 24 June 1980, the applicant reenlisted for a period of 3 years, at the time of his enlistment he was 26 years old, with 7 years, 8 months and 17 days of prior active service and had attained the rank of sergeant pay grade E-5. On 17 September 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive a Discharge Certificate Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. On 14 November 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined that...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050014127
On 7 December 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive an UOTHC discharge, and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. On 19 December 1983, the applicant was discharged accordingly. 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.