| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Joyce A. Hall | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his hometown of Temple, New Hampshire is dedicating a memorial stone to the veterans who served their country in the 20th century. He submits a copy of his police clearance from the West Virginia State Police dated 9 March 2001, in support of his application.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 21 November 1977, the applicant initially enlisted in the United States Army for 3 years. On 23 January 1979, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. He successfully completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13B10 (Cannon Crewman). The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-4.
On 19 December 1979, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to obey a lawful order and for being disrespectful in language to a superior noncommissioned officer on
27 November 1979. His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade
E-3, a forfeiture of $127.00 pay, 14 days extra duty and 14 days restriction.
On 13 August 1980, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant
charging him with assault, indecent exposure, being absent without leave and making a false statement while under oath to military authorities.
The applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial. The applicant also acknowledged that by submitting the request for discharge he was admitting his guilt of the charges that were preferred against him. 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 was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf, but declined to do so.
The applicant’s separation physical is missing from his personnel record.
On 19 September 1980, the appropriate authority approved his request and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC. On 6 October 1980, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with a discharge UOTHC. He completed 2 years, 10 months and 13 days of creditable active service and had
3 days lost time.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority of 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 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. 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 Board noted the police clearance submitted by the applicant; however, it does not provide the Board a basis upon which to grant relief.
3. The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provision 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. Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
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
__lls___ __mhm___ __jtm___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001056109 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010906 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19801006 |
| 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 | CY2002 | 2002072632C070403
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 28 February 1980, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with a discharge UOTHC. On 14 August 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076143C070215
The Board considered the following evidence: The applicant's Report of Separation and Record of Service, NGB Form 22, shows he was discharged from the ARARNG (but not as a Reserve of the Army) on 28 May 1979 by reason of being ordered to involuntary active duty. Counsel stated that it was the applicant's understanding that he was discharged from military service and that he was completely unaware of being placed on active duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061111C070421
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 8 June 1993, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000740C070205
On 8 November 1979, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations), chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant’s record is void of the separation authorities approved request of the applicant's discharge and issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge from the Army. The evidence of record shows the applicant had...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070006852
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge, characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), be upgraded in order to receive service-connected compensation. On 13 February 1980, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge characterized as UOTHC and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068671C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 20 October 1980, the separation authority directed that the applicant be reduced to pay grade E-1 and separated with a UOTHC discharge. The applicant expressed that he was experiencing personal problems after he returned from being AWOL, however, there is no evidence that he sought assistance through his chain of command prior to going AWOL.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057974C070420
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The Board considered the following evidence: His Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty DD Form 214, item 29, (Dates of Time Lost During This Period) shows the same AWOL dates.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040002488C070208
The applicant requests that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general discharge (GD). On 13 February 1979, he was discharged from the DEP and he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 71D (Legal Clerk). On 19 November 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050018298C070206
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 July 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050018298 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. His punishment consisted of 14 days extra duty, 14 days restriction, a forfeiture of $50.00 pay for one month, and reduction to private E-2 (suspended until 8 June 1981). However, the evidence of record shows that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004102195C070208
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 16 December 1980, the applicant was separated in absentia with a UOTHC discharge for conduct triable by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is considered appropriate.