| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions.
APPLICANT STATES: That he needs an upgraded discharge to receive compensation for a service-connected medical problem. All his other discharges were honorable. He believes that enough time has been served and it would be unjust to continue to have this type of discharge. He provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
After having had prior service in the U. S. Air Force, he enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 May 1975. He was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment several times, his last reenlistment being on 15 July 1982. He was promoted to Staff Sergeant, E-6 on 3 January 1984.
On 12 March 1984, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with one specification of assault, six specifications of using indecent language, and one specification of dereliction in the performance of his duties.
On 27 March 1984, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge UOTHC and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. The command endorsements indicate that he apparently made a statement wherein he requested he receive an honorable discharge; however, no statement is available.
On 9 April 1984, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.
On 20 April 1984, the applicant opted not to undergo a separation medical examination.
On 20 April 1984, the applicant was discharged with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had completed 9 years, 5 months, and 11 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.
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 UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.
On 11 April 1988, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.
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 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. Considering the seriousness of the offenses charged and the applicant’s rank at the time, the type of discharge given for his reenlistment commencing 15 July 1982 was and still is appropriate. His previous good service was recognized with honorable discharges.
3. 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
__jns___ __rtd___ __dph___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001057236 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010828 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19840420 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, ch 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A70.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001263C070206
The applicant provides: a. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief and to excuse failure to timely file. Ronald E. Blakely ______________________ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20050001263 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20050927 TYPE OF DISCHARGE UOTHC DATE OF DISCHARGE 19840502 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR 635-200 C10 DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION GRANT REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001263C070206
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant provides: a. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief and to excuse failure to timely file.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051441C070420
At this late date the Board will not second-guess the commander’s decision not to grant the applicant 45 days leave or to change the start date of his leave. While the Board takes cognizance of the applicant’s stated personal problems, this factor does not warrant the relief requested and it would not be appropriate to change the records to show that the applicant was discharged honorably from the reenlistment commencing on 14 January 1982. That all of the Department of the Army records...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020941
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. a. On 20 April 1988, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his UOTHC discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065178C070421
Accordingly, on 2 November 1984, the applicant was discharged from the Army after completing 5 years, 3 months, and 23 days of creditable military service and accruing 293 days of lost time. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061469C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084216C070212
On the same date, the applicant’s unit commander recommended that his request for discharge be approved with a UOTHC discharge. There is no evidence in the available records to indicate that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012779C071029
Fields | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The applicant’s contentions and his prior good service have been carefully considered; however, considering the length of his AWOL they provide an insufficient basis on which to grant the relief requested.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063988C070421
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. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068593C070402
On 31 January 1983, the approval authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10 and directed that he be separated with a UOTHC discharge in pay grade E-1. The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows that he was separated in absentia on 23 February 1983 under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UOTHC discharge for the good of the service-in lieu of court-martial. On 13 August...