| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Stephanie Thompkins | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr. | Member | |
| Mr. Eric N. Andersen | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: He knows he was wrong to stay away for more than his allowed time, and he did not know he had to file an appeal within a certain time.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was enlisted in the Army as a private, pay grade E-1 on 15 March 1984 at age 20. He was trained as a motor transport operator.
He attained the grade of private first class, pay grade E-3 on 17 February 1985.
On 20 May 1985 he was reported absent without leave (AWOL) and dropped from the rolls as a deserter on 20 June 1985.
On 6 August 1985, he surrendered to military authorities and on 7 August 1985 he was charged with one specification of AWOL for the period 20 May to 6 August 1985.
On the same date, after consulting with legal counsel, he requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. He stated that he was aware of consequences of a discharge UOTHC and acknowledged he departed AWOL due to personal problems. He further stated that his grandfather who raised him was stricken with an illness and paralyzed and he wanted a hardship discharge to get out of the Army to take care of him. However, he felt the proceedings for a hardship discharge would take too long, so he went AWOL. Upon his surrender he desired to be discharged from the United States Army.
On 28 August 1985, the appropriate authority approved his request for discharge and directed that an UOTHC discharge be furnished and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.
He was discharged on 11 September 1985, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of court-martial. He had a total of 1 year, 3 months and 11 days net active service, and 78 days of time lost due to AWOL.
On 12 February 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board advised the applicant that his request was past the 15 year statute and he should request an appeal of his discharge to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records.
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.
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. His contention that he now knows he was wrong to stay away from the base longer than his allowed time has been noted by the Board; however, 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, 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. 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
_rvo____ __hof_____ __ena__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001054182 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010726 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | A70 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069719C070402
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 | DRB | CY2005 | 20050010272
The applicant’s record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 22 February 1983. On 14 January 1986, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive an UOTHC discharge. On 14 February 1986, the applicant was discharged accordingly.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008805
The applicant also submitted a personal request for a general discharge. On 17 October 1979 the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Board discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge during the 15 year statute of limitation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070400C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. Both requests were denied.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075164C070403
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: On 16 January 1985, he went AWOL and remained absent until he surrendered to military authorities at Fort Bragg on 26 February 1985, where charges were preferred against him for the AWOL offense.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000357
Their father was the sole provider for the family until the applicant began sending a $250.00 monthly allotment home to help the family. d. The applicant didn't tell their father that he had left his duties in the military until sometime later. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079164C070215
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: EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065511C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board notes that the applicant’s current contention that he was given an extension of leave over the phone but was charged with being AWOL anyway is different from his contention at the time that he tried to contact his unit through the services of his recruiter but was unable to do so. While the Board sympathizes with the applicant’s reasons for wanting a leave...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069115C070402
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: In the spring of 1980, he returned home on leave and found his daughter and her mother going through many hardships.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040005897C070208
It further shows that on 10 June 1985, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge request and directed that he receive an UOTHC discharge. The evidence of record confirms the preponderance of the applicant’s active duty service was honorable, as evidenced by his receiving the Army Good Conduct Medal. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief and to excuse failure to timely file.