| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deyon D. Battle | Analyst |
| Mr. James E. Vick | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Mr. William D. Barr | Member |
2. The applicant requests that his Certificate of Release or Discharge (DD Form 214) be corrected to show that he was awarded the Army Achievement Medal (AAM). He also requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable or a general discharge.
3. The applicant states that he was never given the opportunity to explain what happened before he was told that he was being discharged for the good of the service. In support of his appeal he submits a copy of the certificate awarding him the AAM on 26 June 1984 and a copy of a Service School Academic Evaluation Report showing that he successfully completed his training as a light wheel vehicle mechanic. He also submits copies of letters of appreciation and copies of certificates for courses that he has completed while he was in the Army.
4. The applicant’s military records show that on 1 February 1983, he enlisted in the Army for 4 years in the pay grade of E-3. He successfully completed his training as a light wheel vehicle mechanic.
5. His awards include the Army Service Ribbon and the Expert Qualification Badge (Rifle M-16).
6. A review of the records show that on 26 June 1984, the applicant was awarded the AAM for meritorious achievement during the period 15 March 1984 through 30 April 1984.
7. On 15 March 1985, the applicant was notified that charges were pending against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 26 December 1984 until 13 March 1985. He acknowledged receipt of notification and, after consulting with counsel, he waived his rights and submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. At the time that he submitted his request for discharge, he opted not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
8. The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge on 25 March 1985. Accordingly, on 19 April 1985, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had completed 2 years and 1 day of total active service and he had 77 days of lost time due to AWOL.
9. On 9 November 1994, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge.
10. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, that the Army Achievement Medal is awarded to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States, who while serving in a noncombat area on or after 1 August 1981, distinguished themselves by meritorious service or achievement.
11. 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. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. During the preparation of the applicant’s DD Form 214 an error was made which resulted in the AAM being omitted.
2. The evidence of record clearly shows that on 26 June 1984 he was awarded the AAM for the period covering 15 March through 30 April 1984 and his DD Form 214 should be amended to reflect this award.
3. The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions regarding his discharge. The Board has also considered the letters of appreciation and the certificates of completed courses that he has submitted in behalf of his appeal. However, the record clearly shows that he chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial. At the time he submitted his request for discharge he opted not to submit a statement in his own behalf to explain his actions. Although he may now feel that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.
4. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by amending the DD Form 214 of the individual concerned to show that he was awarded the Army Achievement Medal.
2. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.
BOARD VOTE:
___be___ ___jev___ __wb____ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
______James E. Vick______
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2001056624 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/08/21 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1985/04/19 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | 689 |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 706 | 144.7017.0000 |
| 2. 46 | 107.0000.0000 |
| 3. 71 | 107.0025.0000 |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002450
Because he was a sergeant with less than 5 years service he had no chance to appeal. On 18 December 1984, the applicant was notified by his commander that action was being taken to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct. On 18 December 1984, the applicant's commander wrote a letter of recommendation wherein he strongly requested that the applicant not be separated for his misconduct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009051
Therefore, his DD Form 214 for the period ending 31 March 1992 correctly shows the number of AAMs he is entitled to. With respect to additional awards of the ARCOM, evidence of record shows orders awarded him two awards of the ARCOM and his DD Form 214 shows these awards. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to: * adding to additional awards of the AAM, ARCOM, and his appreciation and service certificates to his DD Form 214 * adding the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012603
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 14 February 1986, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed his discharge under other than honorable conditions. Based on his record of indiscipline, which included violations of the UCMJ that resulted in preferred court-martial charges and nonjudicial punishment, and in view of the fact that he voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a trial by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000542
His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. b. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. _______ _ _X______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017805
The applicant states, in effect: a. he earned five awards of the Army Achievement Medal (AAM) but only three awards are listed in item 13 of his DD Form 214. b. two additional awards of the AAM should be listed in item 13 of this DD Form 214. c. item 14 of this DD Form 214 does not list any courses or schools he attended from July 1983 to September 1992. It states item 14 will list formal in-service (full-time attendance) training courses successfully completed during the period of service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088746C070403
Effective 29 November 1981, the applicant was issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate after completion of 2 years, 9 months, and 9 days service based on an immediate reenlistment on 30 November 1981 in the pay grade of E-3. There is no evidence of record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within the 15-year time limit. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017448
The applicant requests reconsideration of his request for upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. A DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows the applicant was discharged on 15 January 1986 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007036
The separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed his discharge under other than honorable conditions. Records show that two DD Forms 214 document the applicant's honorable active duty enlisted service in the RA from: * 28 January 1971 through 25 January 1974 * 26 August 1975 through 27 August 1979 3. Clearly, the applicant's service during the period under review did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015097
The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. On 19 November 1985, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicants request and directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge and reduction to pay grade E-1. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, specified that an honorable discharge was a separation with honor.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018242
In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charges against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a discharge under other than honorable conditions. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged for the good of the service with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions. Although an honorable or general...