| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Joyce A. Hall | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he believes his UOTHC discharge to be inequitable. His separation was based upon one isolated incident. He was in the military for 141/2 months and didn’t have any other adverse action. He was absent without leave (AWOL) for approximately 1 month. He went home on leave to visit his parents, he found them ill. His parents died six months after his discharged.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 20 November 1978, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years.
He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 12B10 (Combat Engineer). The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-2.
The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) shows two periods of AWOL. The first period was from 5 to 7 May 1979 and the second period was from 17 July to 8 August 1979. 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. The circumstances surrounding the AWOL’s are missing from his record.
On 6 December 1979, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant of being AWOL from 3 September to 27 November 1979.
On 7 December 1979, 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 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. The applicant submitted a statement in his behalf; however, his statement is faded and can not be read.
A mental and a physical evaluation found the applicant fit for separation.
On 14 January 1980, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC. On 5 March 1980, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. He completed 11 months and 27 days of creditable active service and had 111 days of 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. 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. There is no evidence in the applicant’s record, nor has he submitted any evidence to support his allegation that his discharge was inequitable.
3. 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 laws and regulations. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.
4. 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
__cla___ __clg___ __dph___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001057974 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010911 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19800305 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, Chapter10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A70.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.7000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | CY2002 | 2002081273C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against them or of a lesser included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and they must indicate that they have been briefed and understand the consequences of such a request as...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013202
The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable or general discharge. On 2 December 1981, the applicant requested a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel). The evidence of record also shows that the applicant failed to complete the training he requested when he enlisted in the Army.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011420
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 30 November 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions. ___Ted Kanamine_____ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20060011420 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20070227 TYPE OF DISCHARGE UOTHC DATE OF DISCHARGE 19811218 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR 635-200 Chapter 10 DISCHARGE REASON For the good of the service, in lieu of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011246
The two periods of AWOL and the NJP's noted in the unit commander's comments are not recorded elsewhere in official record. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, states that a general discharge (GD) is a separation under honorable conditions issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not so meritorious as to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021594
The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to a general discharge (GD) 2. On 2 May 1980, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, and directed he receive an UOTHC discharge. On 19 May 1980, the applicant was discharged accordingly.
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 | CY2002 | 2002078134C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014659
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 30 May 1980, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service, and directed the applicant receive an UOTHC discharge. The record also shows the applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in his receiving a punitive discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050013650C070206
The applicant requests that his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge. At the time of the applicant’s separation, the regulation provided for the issuance of an UOTHC discharge. There is no evidence in the available records nor did the applicant provide any documentation that he was told if he was AWOL for 75 days that he would be separated "for the good of the service."