| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Margaret V. Thompson | Member | |
| Mr. William D. Powers | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be reinstated back in the Army in pay grade E-6.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the United States (US) Government framed him and violated his civil rights. In support of his application, he submits a copy of the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) case report and directive, dated
28 February 2001.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant entered the Army on 1 July 1986 and upon completion of training was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 92R (Parachute Rigger). The highest rank he attained was sergeant/E-5 (SGT/E5) and he earned the following awards during his active duty tenure: Army Achievement (1st OLC), Good Conduct Medal (3rd Award), and National Defense Service Medal.
In October 1997, while the applicant was serving in Korea, court-martial charges were preferred against him for housebreaking, indecent assault, and disobeying a lawful command from a commissioned officer. After consulting with legal counsel and being advised of his rights, the applicant voluntarily submitted a request to be administratively discharged for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
The request for discharge was approved by the appropriate authority and on
19 December 1997, the applicant was discharged from the Army, under other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial. At the time of his discharge he had completed a total of 11 years, 5 months, and 19 days of active military service.
The applicant applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge and on
9 March 2000, the ADRB granted partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of the applicant’s service to general, under honorable conditions, which resulted in a restoration of his rank to SGT/E-5. However, the ADRB determined that the reason for the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed 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. This request may be submitted at any time after charges are preferred and must include an admission of guilt by the individual. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, 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 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.
2. The ADRB granted partial relief in the form of an upgrade of characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions and restored his rank back to sergeant. Also, the ADRB determined that the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. The Boards concurs with these findings.
3. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument that would warrant an upgrade of his discharge from general to honorable and to restore him back in the Army.
4. The contentions of the applicant have been noted by the Board. However, they are not supported by the evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.
5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s discharge.
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
__JNS__ __ MVT __ __WDP__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001055696 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/07/24 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016186
The applicant states that at the time of his discharge processing his lawyer told him he would receive an honorable discharge, he would be credited with the time he would have served, his sergeant (SGT)/E-5 rank would be restored, he would receive back pay for the entire period, and 35 days of excess leave would be removed. On 20 November 1979, the applicant was placed on excess leave and the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge request on 17 December 1979. On 3 February...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010181
This memorandum indicated that after the applicant had returned from a 3-day rest and recreation from the CSC (113th Combat Stress Unit) he was verbally informed to report back to his section and continue to do his job. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program), provides, in pertinent part, that prior to discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057470C070420
The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded; and that his reentry code, separation code, and rank be corrected accordingly. The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Army on 27 July 1995 for 4 years. On 30 April 2001, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade to his discharge.
ARMY | DRB | CY2014 | AR20140020614
Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 August 1998, for a period of 3 years. On 27 September 20002, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request and directed the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: 1.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080001404
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 20 October 1994, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, and directed that he receive an UOTHC discharge, and that he be reduced to PV1 prior to the execution of his discharge. The restoration of the applicant's grade that resulted from the ADRB upgrade action was accomplished as a matter of equity and does not call into question the propriety of the original UOTHC discharge, or...
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060008173
Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 with attachments II. On 28 April 2006, the separation authority approved the discharge with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Yes No Counsel: N/A Witnesses/Observers: N/A Exhibits Submitted: N/A VIII.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003198C070205
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned reentry codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show, to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise appear, that the record is in error...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056162C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant submitted a request for an upgrade of his discharge to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) and on 17 October 1977, the ADRB upgraded his discharge to general, under honorable conditions under the criteria of the Department of Defense Discharge Review Program (Special) in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100028919
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 June 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100028919 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's records contains a record of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, dated 3 November 2000, for conspiring to steal and stealing property valued at $250.00 from the Fort Sill Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) Shoppette for which he received a reduction to specialist (SPC)/E-4 and a forfeiture of $796 pay for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004544C070206
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 September 1991 for a period of 6 years and training as an eye specialist. The ADRB voted unanimously to upgrade his service to fully honorable and to change the reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority on 10 December 2004. Although the applicant would have the Board to believe that the ADRB upgraded his discharge to honorable because he was unjustly discharged, such is not the case.