| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Ms. JoAnn H. Langston | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Member | ||
| Mr. Eric N. Andersen | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his discharge was unjust and his prior honorable service, coupled with 16 years of outstanding service as a civilian employee with the Department of Defense are factors that support an upgrade to his discharge and should be considered by the Board during its review. In support of his application, he submits a Department of Defense Civilian Leave and Earning Statement (DFAS Form 1).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 31 August 1978, the applicant reenlisted for the enlistment under review. At the time of this reenlistment, he had already completed 2 years, 8 months, and
5 days of honorable active duty service. He also had been trained and was serving in military occupational specialty (MOS) 76W (Petroleum Supply Specialist).
The record shows that the highest rank the applicant attained while serving on active duty was sergeant/E-5 and that he earned the Army Good Conduct Medal. However, it documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.
A Personnel Action (DA Form 4187) on file, dated 17 February 1981, confirms that the applicant was declared absent without leave (AWOL) on 17 February 1981. He remained away for 381 days until 4 March 1982, when he returned to military control.
The applicant’s discharge packet, containing the specific facts and circumstances pertaining to his discharge processing, is missing from his military records. However, there is a properly constituted separation document (DD Form 214) on file that contains the authority, reason, and characterization of the applicant’s discharge. It confirms that he was administratively discharged on 2 July 1982, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of conduct triable by court-martial.
The separation document also verifies that the applicant’s service was characterized as UOTHC and that he had completed a total of 5 years, 5 months, and 21 days of creditable active military service, and that he had accrued a total of 383 days of lost time due to AWOL.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within 15-year statute of limitations.
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 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. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the Army. However, the Board notes that his record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 that contains the authority and reason for his separation. Therefore, the Board presumes government regularity in the discharge process.
2. The separation document confirms that the applicant was discharged for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by court-martial. Procedurally, this would have required him to consult with legal counsel in order to be advised of the basis for the contemplated court-martial, the rights available to him, and the effects of a UOTHC discharge. In addition, he would have been required to admit guilt to the stipulated offense under the UCMJ and to voluntarily request, in writing, an administrative discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.
3. As requested by the applicant, the Board considered his prior honorable service, and his post service conduct and employment. However, it concludes that these factors alone do not mitigate the applicant’s misconduct sufficiently to warrant an upgrade to his discharge.
4. 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.
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
__JHL__ _ _MKP__ __ENA__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001060394 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/12/04 |
| 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. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079969C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 24 March 1982, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge. The separation document issued to the applicant upon his discharge confirms that he was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial after completing a total of 1 year, 9 months, and 22 days of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068418C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 2 September 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board determined the applicant’s discharge had been proper and equitable and it denied his request for an upgrade. A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064668C070421
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The separation document confirms that the applicant was discharged for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by court-martial. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001064668SUFFIXRECONYYYYMMDDDATE BOARDED2002/02/21TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE19820228DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200 Chapter 10 .
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060613C070421
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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004232
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 11 February 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed he be issued a UOTHC discharge. Given the voluntary nature of his discharge request and his undistinguished overall record of service, the UOTHC discharge he received accurately reflects the overall qualify of his service which did not support the issue of an HD or GD by the separation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070000898C071113
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 31 December 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued a Discharge Certificate Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC). The separation document (DD Form 214) he was issued confirms he completed 1 year, 4 months and 16 days of creditable active military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080002191
On 16 April 1982, 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 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. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065535C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 20 June 1985, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his 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: 1.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010855C070208
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 of a lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. On 18 August 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive an UOTHC discharge. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070001965C071029
On 23 February 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge, and directed he receive an UOTHC discharge. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 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.