| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Eric N. Andersen | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy, jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he served in the Army with no disciplinary problems prior to the incident which led to his separation and this honorable service should be considered in determining if his discharge should be upgraded. He further states that he was pressured into requesting separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 12 April 1979, the applicant enlisted in the Army for 3 years. The highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private (E-2). He successfully completed basic combat training, advanced individual training, and he was subsequently assigned to Fort Campbell, Kentucky. On 27 August 1980, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for disobeying a lawful order, being drunk and disorderly, and for striking another soldier in the face with fist.
The applicant’s discharge packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge processing is not in the record. However, there is a properly constituted separation document (DD Form 214) on file that contains the authority and reason for discharge. This document was authenticated by the applicant with his signature. It confirms that on 1 April 1981 he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial. It also shows that his service was characterized as UOTHC and that he had completed only 1 year, 3 months, and 21 days of active military service.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provides for members, who have committed an offense or offenses that authorize a punitive discharge, to submit a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after court-martial charges are preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions.
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 record is void of facts and circumstances concerning events that led to a discharge from the Army. The Board notes that his record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214, which was authenticated by the applicant with his signature and the Board presumes government regularity in the discharge process.
2. The separation document confirms that the applicant was discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. Procedurally, this would have required him to consult with legal counsel after being charged with the commission of an offense(s) punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge. In addition, he would have had to voluntarily request separation after admitting guilt to the stipulated offense(s) under the UCMJ.
3. Lacking independent evidence that supports the applicant’s claim that he was pressured into requesting discharge, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, the Board finds the applicant’s good service during the initial portion of the enlistment was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an upgrade of his discharge and it concludes that the characterization of his service is commensurate with his overall record of service.
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
__RVO___ __ENA__ __TEO__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001058227 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/09/27 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC,) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19810401 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, chapter 10. . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Separation in lieu of trial |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 23.03 | 23.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060505C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 4 February 1977, 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066619C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Paragraph 4-3 states that an enlisted soldier may not be referred for, or continue, physical disability processing when action has been started under any regulatory provision which authorizes a characterization of service of UOTHC unless the general court-martial convening authority finds that the disability is the cause, or a substantial contributing cause, of the...
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 | CY2007 | 20070014505
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 February 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070014505 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 8 March 1973, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be issued an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080710C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The appropriate authority approved his request on 28 February 1983 and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions. Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions while on excess leave, on 18 March 1983, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070014166
The applicant requests correction of her records as follows: a. The applicant provided the following additional documentary evidence in support of her application: a. Self-authored letter, dated 20 September 2007; b. DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), dated 3 June 2003; c. Character reference letter, dated 12 April 2007; d. Letter, dated 13 July 2007, Review Board Agency, approval of the applicant's discharge upgrade; and e. DD Form 214, dated 3 June 2003...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091649C070212
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067223C070402
On 12 September 2000, the applicant’s DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows that he was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial with a UOTHC discharge. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068799C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: 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 trial by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074311C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. It is noted by the evidence he provided that he was not generally a good service member during his service as he restarted his marijuana use shortly after he enlisted and in a few years started using cocaine and it appears that it was only through luck that he was caught using marijuana only once. Considering the offenses for which the applicant was charged and his record...