| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock | Analyst |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member | |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That this discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: He made no statement to this Board. However, in a statement to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), which first considered his request, he stated that after serving nine years in the Army his discharge under honorable conditions was unfair.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
A 9 July 1997 statement of service shows that the applicant had service in both the active and inactive Army Reserve in 1992 and 1993. He completed active duty for training as a motor transport operator at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, on 19 August 1993. He enlisted in the Army Reserve at Hofstra University at Hempstead, New York on 2 December 1995. He was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Army Reserve on 23 May 1997 and attended OBC (officer basic course) at Fort Gordon, Georgia. He completed training and in November was assigned to the 58th Signal Company in Germany.
On 1 September 1999 the applicant was charged with wrongfully possessing approximately 13 grams of hashish between 22 June and 24 July 1999. The applicant voluntarily requested resignation for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 3-13. He stated that he did not desire to appear before a court-martial or a board of officers. He stated that he had not been subject to coercion with regard to his resignation and had been advised of and fully understood the implication of his action. He stated that he had consulted with counsel prior to submitting his resignation and had been advised that he could consult with and be represented by counsel. He stated that he had been afforded an opportunity to present matters in explanation, mitigation, or defense. He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the under other than honorable conditions discharge that he might receive.
On 21 October 1999 the separation authority approved the applicant’s request and directed that he be discharged under honorable conditions. He was discharged on 5 November 1999 at Mannheim, Germany. He had 2 years, 5 months, and 5 days of service.
On 10 October 2001 the Army Discharge Review Board, in an unanimous decision, denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.
Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 3-13 provides the rules for processing resignation for the good of the service in lieu of a general court-martial and states that an officer may submit a resignation for the good of the service in lieu of general court-martial when court-martial charges have been preferred against the officer with a view toward trial by general court-martial. A resignation will be expeditiously forwarded to the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) for action. Separation instructions on approved cases will by issued by that command. An officer separated under the provisions of paragraph 3-13 normally receives a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.
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. The applicant's voluntary resignation under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, chapter 3, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. The character of his service was more than fair. He could have received a discharge under other than honorable conditions.
2. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.
3. 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 that requirement.
4. 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
__WTM__ __AAO__ __CLG __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001058060 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011101 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | 360 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084376C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. An honorable characterization of service will normally be given when the quality of the officer’s service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for an officer. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082707C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : That at the time of his discharge, he had 19½ years of service and he believes he is entitled to a 15-year retirement. He was honorably discharged on 17 March 1988 to accept a United States Army Reserve (USAR) appointment as a warrant officer one (WO1) with a concurrent call to active duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010257
The applicant requests correction of his military records to show a narrative reason for separation other than "in lieu of trial by court-martial." Certificate of Course Completion, Combined Arms and Services Staff School, dated 15 July 1998; r. Promotion orders for first lieutenant and captain, dated 30 June 1995 and 15 July 1997, respectively; s. Award orders for the Army Achievement Medal, dated 28 September 1994; t. Permanent change of station orders to Fort Benning, Georgia, dated 21...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058671C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : That his discharge under other than honorable conditions was upgraded to honorable by the Army Discharge Review Board. The fact that the Army Discharge Review Board deemed it appropriate to upgrade his discharge to honorable is not good reason to reinstate him in the Army, nor reason to expunge the derogatory information contained in his OMPF.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067948C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He believes that both the assignment to the 1st Infantry Division and his selection to develop the Pre-Ranger training course were based upon the applicant's Officer Record Brief (ORB), Exhibit 11, which indicates completion of the Ranger Course in 1994. On 18 September 2000, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the case and denied his request to change the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000556
On 15 September 1993, the applicant's RFGOS was approved under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-120 (Officer Resignations and Discharges), chapter 5, with an under other than honorable conditions character of service. d. paragraph 8, states "records show the applicant submitted his resignation for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. (2) counsel states the applicant made no request to resign or be separated in his RFGOS, but instead stated that he would prefer to...
ARMY | DRB | CY2004 | AR2004102871
Applicant's issue(s) of propriety and/or equity: ( X ) Same as those listed on DD Form 293 and Part IV, Section A of this case report and directive. The Board, being convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief. Minority views: NONE PART VII - BOARD ACTION SECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified MR. RIVERA Case Reviewing Official PART VIII -...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011644
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to a fully honorable discharge. His immediate and senior commanders reviewed his request and opined that although the charge against him was serious, the needs of the service would be best met if the resignation were accepted in lieu of trial by GCM. On 11 March 1998, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the ad hoc board to accept the applicant's resignation for the good of...
ARMY | DRB | CY2003 | 2003085701
On 27 September 1999, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board and directed that the applicant be discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The applicant was discharged. AR Number: 2003085701 INDEX NUMBERS: A9235 Date of Review: 030820 A9217 Character of Service: GD A0113 Date of Discharge: 991020 Authority: AR 600-8-24 C3 Reason: A8000 Results of Board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001066261C070421
On 9 June 2000, the discharge authority accepted the applicant’s resignation in lieu of trial by court-martial and directed that he be separated from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 3-13 with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. It also stated that documents with enclosures to related adverse actions, which resulted in elimination from the service, would be filed on the restricted (R) fiche of the OMPF. The evidence of record shows that...