| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Joe R. Schroeder | Member | |
| Mr. Charles Gainor | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he made one mistake 23 years ago. He has never been in trouble of any sort since. This would give closure on a youthful mistake. He provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was born on 8 June 1957. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 August 1976. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 94B (Cook). He was promoted to Specialist Four, E-4 on 13 January 1978.
On 28 February 1978, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with two specifications each of wrongfully selling, transferring, and possessing two bags totaling 25 grams more or less of marijuana and one specification of wrongfully possessing three ounces more or less of marijuana, all offenses taking place on 15 February 1978.
On 28 March 1978, 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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
The applicant’s company and battalion commanders recommended approval of his request with a general discharge under honorable conditions. His battalion commander had noted that it was “based on his work with the DST” (drug suppression team). The brigade commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request with a discharge UOTHC. He noted that the applicant’s cooperation with the DST was effective after he was caught. The brigade commander noted that he would not press for a bad-conduct discharge special court-martial but the facts suggested the applicant was a seller.
On 27 April 1978, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.
On 1 May 1978, 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, 8 months, and 1 day of creditable active service and had no 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. A discharge UOTHC 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. 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.
3. The Board notes that the applicant was almost 21 years old at the time of the offenses charged. He was a Specialist Four, E-4 and had been in the Army for over 18 months. By requesting an administrative discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial he admitted to his guilt. Had he been tried and convicted instead of given an administrative discharge, he would have had a Federal conviction on his record. The Board is cognizant of his contention that he has since been a model citizen; however, considering the seriousness of the offenses charged the type of discharge given was and still is appropriate.
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
__lls___ __jrs___ ___cg___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001058523 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011010 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19780501 |
| 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 | CY2006 | 20060004470C070205
He states that both he and the NCO were questioned at length, and that although he was threatened with court-martial and told that he would not be charged if he would be a witness for the United States against the NCO, he chose to exercise his constitutional right by not providing any information against the NCO. He states that he was a young and impressionable Soldier serving in the pay grade of E-2 trying to do a favor for an NCO; that the contraband was a non-controlled substance; that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052209C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Army policy states that although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071369C070402
On 13 August 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge. The applicant was 21-years old at the time he went AWOL. The Board has considered how well he did in basic training and his character witness statements; nevertheless, considering the length of his AWOL these factors do not warrant granting the relief requested.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001175
The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to a general discharge (GD). On 16 January 1979, the discharge authority approved the discharge request. _______ _ x_______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084400C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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 court-martial. The character of the discharge is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063765C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He stated that by submitting his request for discharge, he acknowledged that he was guilty of the charges against him. The Army Review Board Agency Support Division, St. Louis will be requested to correct the applicant’s enlistment date on his DD Form 214 to show 23 August 1976 instead of 23 August 1978, and any other administrative corrections deemed appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070001182C071029
On 8 June 1978, the applicant was discharged with a discharge under other than honorable conditions, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court- martial. On 4 March 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063395C070421
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: On 25 March 1978, the applicant’s unit commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge with a UOTHC discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084258C070212
He was confined in the commander's office until he signed the discharge packet. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Without having the discharge packet to consider, the Board presumes that the applicant's commander considered the offense(s) charged and the applicant's overall record of service and determined that a discharge UOTHC was appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057474C070420
On 21 February 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge. The evidence of record shows that the applicant had not served honorably up until the time of the incident for which he was discharged. The Board is cognizant of the fact that the applicant was 17 years old at the time of his enlistment.