| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Ms. JoAnn H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Mark D. Manning | Member | |
| Mr. Jose A. Martinez | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that when he was charged with possession of drugs his appointed military lawyer directed him to sign the request for discharge in lieu of trail by court-martial. He claims that was too young and should not have signed the request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. He further states that he had no knowledge of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and was in the wrong place at the wrong time. In support of his application he submits the following documents: five letters of support from friends, coworkers and employers; certificates of training and achievement; Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1); and his separation document (DD Form 214).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 31 May 1977, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. He successfully completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS)
11B (Infantryman). His record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition and it confirms that highest rank he attained while on active duty was specialist/E-4 (SP/E-4).
His disciplinary record includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on 19 September 1978 for disobeying a lawful order.
In May 1980, a court-martial charge was preferred against the applicant for wrongfully possessing 20.90 grams of marijuana in the hashish form on or about
29 February 1980.
On 7 May 1980, the applicant consulted legal counsel and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum allowable punishment, and the possible effects of an UOTHC discharge, he voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.
On 14 May 1980, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s discharge request and directed he be separated UOTHC and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. On 11 July 1980, the applicant was discharged accordingly after having completed a total of 3 years and 11 days of creditable active military service.
On 9 November 1987, the Army Discharge Review Board determined the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable and denied his request for an upgrade to his discharge.
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 court-martial charges have been preferred. 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. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he was young and should not have accepted discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial but finds this factor alone is not sufficient to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
2. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. After consulting counsel and being advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum allowable punishment, and the possible effects of an UOTHC discharge, he voluntarily requested separation in lieu of trial by
court-martial. In doing so, he admitted guilt to the stipulated offense under the UCMJ.
3. 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. It also notes that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally UOTHC and that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge.
4. Finally, the Board notes that the applicant chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial. Although he may now feel that he made the wrong choice, this is not a sufficient basis for granting the requested relief. The Board finds the applicant’s characterization of service was appropriate based on his misconduct and that it accurately reflects his overall record of service.
5. 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.
6. 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
__JHL___ __MDM__ __JAM__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001059760 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/10/11 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19800611 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200. . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | In lieu of trial by Court-martial |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 93.01. | 74. |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012846
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 6 March 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060012846 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. In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge against him, or to a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070015637C080407
John G. Heck | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 14 May 1980, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The evidence of record further shows the applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in his receiving a punitive discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062625C070421
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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010822
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. The separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a UOTHC discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059417C070421
On 17 December 1984, the Army Discharge Review Board determined the applicant’s discharge had been proper and equitable and denied his request for an upgrade to his discharge. It also notes that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally UOTHC and that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001059417SUFFIXRECONYYYYMMDDDATE BOARDED2001/09/13TYPE OF...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003452
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his military record to show his correct grade and an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD). On 9 September 1980, after having considered the applicant's request, the separation authority approved his request and directed the issuance of a UOTHC Discharge Certificate under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. Although an honorable or a...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050013538
On 21 January 1988, while serving at Fort Polk, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time. In his request for discharge, the applicant also indicated that he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge(s) against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004101383C070208
On 1 August 1980, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive an UOTHC discharge. On 14 August 1980, the applicant was discharged accordingly. _ JOHN N. SLOANE____ CHAIRPERSON INDEX |CASE ID |AR2004101383 | |SUFFIX | | |RECON | | |DATE BOARDED |2004/08/DD | |TYPE OF DISCHARGE |UOTHC | |DATE OF DISCHARGE |1980/08/14 | |DISCHARGE AUTHORITY |AR 635-200 C10 | |DISCHARGE REASON |In Lieu of CM | |BOARD DECISION |DENY | |REVIEW AUTHORITY |...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015506C071029
On 17 February 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge, and directed he receive an UOTHC discharge. An UOTHC discharge normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. The evidence of record further shows that after being AWOL for more than 800 day, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in his receiving a punitive discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100000585
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Contrary to the applicant's assertion that he was not allowed to face his charges, the record clearly shows after a court-marital charge was preferred against the applicant, he consulted with legal counsel and after being properly advised of the basis for the contemplated court-martial and it effects, the effects of a UOTHC discharge and of the rights available to him, he voluntarily requested...