| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Rosa M. Chandler | Analyst |
| Mr. James E. Vick | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Mr. William D. Barr | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, he was suffering from an untreated mental disorder; he was very young; and he was experiencing severe marital problems.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years on 16 September 1980 for the training of choice/cash bonus enlistment option for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 54E (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Specialist). He was 23 years old at the time.
On 8 December 1980, while he was assigned to advanced individual training at Fort McClellan, Alabama, he received orders assigning him to Germany. On 4 February 1981, he departed his unit in an absent without leave (AW0L) status.
Civilian authorities arrested him and confined him at the Tulare County Jail, Visalia, California on a concealed weapons charge. On 18 December 1982, he was returned to the AWOL Apprehension Section, Fort Ord, California.
On 5 January 1983, court-martial charges were preferred against him for being absent from his unit at Fort McClellan from 4 February 1981-17 December 1982.
On 5 January 1983, he consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. He was advised that he could receive a UOTHC discharge. He authenticated a statement with his own signature in which he acknowledged that he understood the ramifications of chapter 10 and the effects of receiving a UOTHC discharge. The available records do not contain a statement submitted by the applicant in his own behalf.
On 5 January 1983, the applicant was placed in a leave without pay status pending his discharge.
On 25 January 1983, the applicant’s unit commander recommended that his request for discharge be approved with a UOTHC discharge. On 26 January 1983, his intermediate commander recommended that his request for discharge be approved with a UOTHC discharge. On 31 January 1983, the separation authority approved separation with a UOTHC discharge.
On 8 February 1983, the applicant was separated in absentia with a UOTHC discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. He had completed 5 months, and 25 days of active military service and he had 683 days of lost time due to being AWOL.
There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge under that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
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 discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a UOTHC discharge was 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 applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid trial by court-martial and there is no evidence of any coercion during the discharge process. He has provided no information that would indicate the contrary.
3. The Board considered the applicant’s entire record of service and was convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both correct.
4. The Board notes that the applicant met entrance qualification standards, to include age. Further, the Board found no evidence that he was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation.
5. The applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance with his personal problems without resorting to the misconduct that led to the separation action under review.
6. There is no evidence that the applicant was ever diagnosed as having a mental disorder or that he needed treatment for a mental disorder when he was in the military. He has provided no evidence to the contrary.
7. 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
__jev____ __bje___ __wdb___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001052937 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010830 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, CHAPTER 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A70.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.7000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060027C070421
He enlisted in Los Angeles, California on 20 July 1982 for a period of 3 years and training as an administrative specialist. On 10 August 1984, he was charged with three specifications of arson, two charges of setting the hospital on fire and the previous charge of January 1984. The appropriate authority approved his request on 21 December 1984 and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011455C070208
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against them or of a lesser included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and they must...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001824
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 15 March 1983, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that the applicant be issued a UOTHC discharge. Chapter 10 provides for members who have committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge to submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial anytime after...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064014C070421
On 24 March 1976, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 25 March 1971 to 18 March 1976. On 19 May 1976, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. There is no evidence in the applicant’s record that indicated he was suffering from PTSD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076813C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 25 August 1981, he was separated with a UOTHC discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. Although an honorable or a general discharge is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000724
The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by a court-martial with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions. It provides for medical evaluation boards (MEB) which are convened to document a Soldier's medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is affected by the Soldier's status. The applicant was not discharged because of any medical condition.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056343C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001056343SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20010830TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE19820311DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200, CHAPTER 10 DISCHARGE REASONA70.00BOARD DECISION(DENY)REVIEW AUTHORITYISSUES 1.144.70002.3.4.5.6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021551
He fully understood the nature of the administrative action initiated against him, but stated it was of little consequence to him. An Army Council of Review Boards Case Report and Directive, dated 25 February 1991, contains a summary of the facts and circumstances of his discharge showing, in part: (1) On 28 March 1983, he was charged with: * failure to go on 22 March 1983 * disobeying a lawful order on 4, 15, 16, 21, and 24 March 1983 * being disorderly in command on 4 and 24 March...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019057
The applicant requests correction of his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to show he received a medical discharge. His service medical records are not available for review. (3) He was discharged in 1984.
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.