| 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 youth and immaturity impaired his ability to serve in the Army.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 14 June 1979, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. He successfully completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS)
67V (Observation-Scout Helicopter Repairman).
The applicant’s 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 private first class/E-3 (PFC/E-3). However, it does reveal a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on the following two occasions for the offenses indicated:
26 December 1979, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 14 December 1979 to 16 December 1979; and 23 June 1980, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.
On 1 December 1980, the applicant was declared absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit. He remained away for 74 days until returning to military control on 12 February 1982.
On 25 February 1981, a court-martial charge was preferred against the applicant for his period of AWOL from 1 December 1980 to 12 February 1981. After consulting with legal 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, the applicant voluntarily requested to be discharged for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.
On 3 March 1981, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s discharge request and directed that he be separated UOTHC and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.
On 24 March 1981, the applicant was discharged accordingly. At the time of his discharge he had completed 1 year, 6 months, and 25 days of creditable active military service and he had accrued 46 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 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. 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 contention that his youth and immaturity impaired his ability to serve in the Army is not supported by the evidence of record, nor has he provided evidence to support these contentions.
2. The evidence of record shows the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge. The Board notes that, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, he admitted guilt to the stipulated offenses 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. Finally, the Board finds the applicant’s characterization of service was appropriate based on his overall record of service.
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 | AR2001060613 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/12/04 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19810324 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, Chapter 10 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | In lieu of trial by court-martial |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001054289C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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: The Board also noted that he was almost 19 years old when he went AWOL and found no evidence that he was any less mature than other 19-year old soldiers who successfully completed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002083073C070215
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 enlistment and discharge he was immature. On 26 May 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076813C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 25 August 1981, he was separated with a UOTHC discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. Although an honorable or a general discharge is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003325
BOARD DATE: 20 October 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150003325 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 14 January 1980, the discharge authority approved the applicant's request for a chapter 10 discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001745
On 28 April 1980 after consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 10. On 28 January 1986, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for upgrade of his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056343C070420
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: Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001056343SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20010830TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE19820311DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200, CHAPTER 10 DISCHARGE REASONA70.00BOARD DECISION(DENY)REVIEW AUTHORITYISSUES 1.144.70002.3.4.5.6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014904
The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. On 6 April 1981, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial with a UOTHC discharge in pay grade E-1. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, stated an honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9611239C070209
He failed to report for sentencing on 23 February 1981. On 24 June 1988 the appropriate authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed he receive a discharge UOTHC. On 23 December 1996 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicants request to upgrade his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010550C070208
He claims his unit commander gave two other Soldiers and himself one week off from duty because they had previously taken on details and other duties to help unit proficiency. On 13 April 1981, the applicant was separated with an UOTHC discharge. The applicant’s contentions that the UOTHC discharge was improper because his new unit commander was not properly informed that he was on authorized leave instead of being AWOL, and because he was never informed of the effects of an UOTHC...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076255C070215
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: A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions.