| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Ms. June Hajjar | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas F. Baxter | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: That he had a perfect record and went to every class and every school he was allowed to go to. He provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
After having had prior service in the Army National Guard, he enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 June 1974. He was honorably discharged on 29 December 1977 for the purpose of immediately reenlisting on 30 December 1977.
On 11 March 1981, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with being absent without leave (AWOL) from 27 June 1978 to on or about 2 March 1981.
On 11 March 1981, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 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 3 April 1981, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request and directed he receive a discharge UOTHC.
On 14 April 1981, 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 with a discharge UOTHC. He had completed 6 months and 24 days of creditable active service for that period and had 980 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. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. 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 this requirement.
2. The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 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.
3. The applicant’s previous good service was recognized in his honorable discharge for the period ending 29 December 1977. Considering the length of the applicant’s AWOL during his last period of service, the type of discharge given was and still is appropriate.
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
__jh____ __tfb___ __jtm___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001053123 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010816 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19810414 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, ch 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A70.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709410
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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. PURPOSE : To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063479C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 21 March 1985, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067956C070402
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 | 9709410C070209
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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. PURPOSE: To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068280C070402
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 | 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 | CY2002 | 2002075795C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 5 May 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be reduced to the pay grade of E-1 and furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014967C071029
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073176C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 11 August 1977, 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 with a discharge UOTHC. There is no evidence to show that the charges were dropped for any reason other than to allow him to administratively separate in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008615
The applicant was discharged UOTHC on 25 August 1981 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. b. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation under honorable conditions issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not so meritorious as to warrant an honorable discharge. d. Paragraph 3-7c(7) specifically addresses issuance of a discharge UOTHC under the provisions of chapter 10. e. Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed...