| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Vic Whitney | Analyst |
| Ms. June Hajjar | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Harry B. Oberg | Member | |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was held accountable for his military clothing and equipment after he departed AWOL. None of his personal property was returned to him either.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted and entered active duty on 9 February 1989. He completed training as a helicopter repairer, served in Panama, and was reassigned to Fort Campbell, Kentucky on 14 September 1990. He had been promoted to the pay grade of E-4 effective 1 December 1989.
Effective 12 August 1991 the applicant was AWOL. He was returned to military control on 15 May 1992 after civil authorities apprehended him. On 5 June 1992, charges were preferred for the AWOL offense. After consulting with counsel, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. In his request he acknowledged that he was guilty of the offense and could receive a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge as a result of trial by court-martial.
An interview sheet in the applicant’s records stated that he went AWOL because of stress, family, and financial problems. He also stated that he discussed his problems with his chain of command. There are no counseling statements in the available record.
The applicant submitted a memorandum to the brigade commander requesting a general discharge. The memorandum explained his family problems with his former wife and the care of his sister by his alcoholic father.
The separation authority approved the request and directed the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and issued an Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate. Effective 19 February 1993, the applicant was discharged under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He had 3 years, 3 months, and 8 days creditable service and 277 days lost time.
On 14 March 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board, in a unanimous decision, voted to deny the applicant an upgrade of his discharge noting that it was both proper and equitable given all the facts of the case.
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. 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. The applicant's request for 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.
2. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
3. 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.
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___ ___ho___ __ca______ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001054482 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010405 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19930219 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, CH 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A71.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.02 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004878
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. AR 635-200 paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. There is no evidence in the applicants records that indicate he was turned over to civil authorities by the Military Police.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011258
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests his discharge be upgraded. On 10 October 1989, the applicant was separated with a UOTHC discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091248C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He states that when he reported to his new duty station he believed that he would receive disciplinary action; however, he was chaptered out of the military with a discharge under other than honorable conditions. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057542C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The Board notes that the applicant was 20 years of age at the time of his first AWOL.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072549C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He served in the Ohio Army National Guard for 3 years, 7 months and 24 days and was discharged as a supply sergeant because of an incompatible occupation. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009189
The applicant again went AWOL from 3 to 8 January 1990; however, the record is silent as to the punishment imposed for that offense. The applicant went AWOL on 10 August 1990 and remained absent in a desertion status until he surrendered to military authorities at Fort Benning, Georgia on 27 February 1992, 1 year, 5 months, and 17 days later. On 14 April 1992, the appropriate authority approved his request for discharge and directed the applicant be given an under other than honorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9311141
This action was routed outside the applicant’s chain of command for a review and recommendation by the commander of the US Army Separation and Transfer Point, the person most knowledgeable of methods of discharge, who recommended against chapter 5 processing. The applicant made application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking to upgrade his discharge to HD and change the separation authority and narrative reason for separation. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052962C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The separation authority approved the request and directed reduction to the lowest enlisted grade and separation under other than honorable conditions. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004466
On 28 August 1989, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from on or about 23 January 1989 to on or about 9 August 1989. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. However, he did not provide evidence as to what his problems were or to what extent they existed.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071586C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a more favorable discharge. At the time of his enlistment he indicated that he was divorced.