| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Margaret V. Thompson | Member | |
| Mr. William D. Powers | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was in Germany on Reforger and accused of burglary of a store. Major General W___ of the 101st Airborne Division believed he was innocent; the German police did not, so General W___ chapter 10d him and flew him back to the States. He had a very good record until this incident. He provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 October 1975. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 95B (Military Police).
On 12 September 1976, the applicant was arrested by the German police for breaking a display window, taking two cameras from inside the window, and fleeing the scene. The military police report there were two witnesses to the act. Two military police patrolling the town noticed the German police handcuff the applicant. They went over to investigate and were informed by the German police of the alleged incident. They noticed glass fragments in the applicant’s hair and on his jacket. The applicant was later released to these two military police and taken to the military police station.
The charge sheet and discharge packet are not available.
On 23 September 1975, Brigadier General H___, Acting Commander, 101st Airborne Division approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.
On 6 October 1976, the applicant completed a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation.
On 8 October 1976, 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 1 year and 7days 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 under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate; however, the discharge authority may direct an honorable or a general 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 and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.
2. The Board does not find it credible that if Major General W___ had believed the applicant to be innocent he would have approved (or allowed to be approved) the applicant’s receiving a discharge UOTHC. The applicant does not provide the discharge packet or any other evidence to support this contention.
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___ __mvt___ __wdp___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001057622 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010724 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19761008 |
| 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 | CY2014 | 20140001779
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his record to show he was honorably discharged on 16 November 1977. It further stated that the applicant's request for immediate enlistment had been considered. His complete separation packet is not available for review and the available documentation does not show the basis for the determination that his entry on active duty was fraudulent.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074334C070403
Prior to the period of service under review the applicant served honorably in the Regular Army (RA) from 20 April 1976-22 October 1979 and from 23 October 1979-25 July 1982. On the same date, at Building 1706, Flak Kaserne, Stuttgart, Germany, the applicant sold the undercover military police investigator (MPI) a $20.00 piece of marijuana in the hashish form. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010651
Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. b. Paragraph 11-2 of chapter 11 (Dishonorable and Bad Conduct Discharge), in effect at the time, provided that a Soldier would be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial after completion of the appellate review and after such affirmed sentence had...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003247C070206
Carmen Duncan | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The board recommended that the applicant be discharged from the Army because of misconduct (conviction by civil court) with the issuance of a less than honorable discharge certificate. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03405
He served 3 years, 8 months and 13 days on active duty. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. We considered whether it was in the interest of justice to consider upgrade of his discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070017996
While enroute to the front lines, orders were received attaching the 101st Airborne Division to the VIII Corps in the Bastogne area, directing the remaining XVIII Airborne Corps Headquarters and the 82nd Airborne Division to proceed into action in the vicinity of Werbomont, Belgium. The applicant served in the European Theater of Operations with Headquarters, XVIII Corps Artillery (Airborne) and was awarded the Air Medal. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012348
The applicant's DD Form 214, dated 2 May 1975 shows, in effect, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with an undesirable discharge. This DD Form 214 shows the applicant completed 5 years, 9 months, and 8 days of active military service this period with 85 days of lost time due to AWOL. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013767
However, his Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge (DD Form 214) shows that he was administratively discharged on 11 March 1976, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The letter provided by the applicants employer states that he has been a responsible...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011727C070208
After completing 2 years, 11 months and 19 days of prior active Army service, he reenlisted in the Army on 6 April 1973, for 5 years, in the pay grade of E-5. While he was AWOL, CID received notification from a Frankfurt military police desk sergeant that on 18 September 1977, the applicant had been apprehended by German police for possession of suspected heroin and drug paraphernalia. As a result, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078839C070215
Sergeant T___ of the police department testified that the department's policy was that officers are not given prior notice to take a drug test and the applicant never failed a random drug test since he had been with the department. In a previous case considered by the Board (AR2000043313), it was noted that an officer from the Tripler Army Medical Center Forensic Toxicology Drug Testing Laboratory had testified in that applicant's administrative separation board that, to test positive for...