| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Joyce A. Hall | Analyst |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he requested a chapter 6 discharge and he was refused.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 30 July 1997, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of
5 years. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11M10 (Fighting Vehicle Infantryman). The highest pay grade he achieved was pay grade E-3.
On 11 January 1999, while assigned to Company B, 3rd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment, Fort Stewart, Georgia, the applicant was reported absent without leave (AWOL).
On 9 April 1999, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 11 January 1999 to 5 April 1999. On the same day the applicant consulted with legal counsel and 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 and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf. The applicant stated in effect,
that he had several reasons why he went AWOL. His main reason was to assist his disabled father. During the period of AWOL he took charge of his father’s plumbing and electrical business. His father was unable to left heavy objects or crawl into tight spaces. The Department of Veterans Affairs rated his father as being permanently disabled due to bypass surgery. His other reasons was because he was stressed out due to father’s physical condition, because he was assigned to a rapid deployment unit and the living conditions were below standard as well as the effectiveness and efficiency of the chain of command.
The applicant’s separation physical is missing from his personnel record.
On 18 December 1999, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.
On 28 June 2000, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge UOTHC. He completed 2 years, 8 months and 28 days of creditable active service and he had 84 days 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. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
On 13 August 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s 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. 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 Board noted the applicant’s contention that he was refused a Chapter
6 discharge. However, the evidence of record does not support his contention nor has the applicant submitted and evidence to support his allegation.
3. 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.
4. The type of discharge and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering
all the facts of the case.
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
__kak___ __reb___ __teo___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001060850 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011211 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 20000628 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, Chapter 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A70.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.7000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001093C070205
The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge, characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), be upgraded to honorable. He went AWOL because his girlfriend, at the time, informed him that she had become pregnant by him and if he did not return to her immediately then she was going to get an abortion. The date of application to the ABCMR is within three years of the decision of the Army Discharge Review Board; therefore, the applicant has timely filed.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059591C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. When he returned to Fort Lewis, WA he was told he would be returned to Vietnam. On 17 March 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004291C070208
Pertinent Army Regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. He has provided no evidence or basis for changing these codes. There is no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016502
The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant upon his discharge on 28 September 2000, shows he was separated under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200, with a characterization of service of UOTHC. On 20 April 2001, the applicant was notified the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), after carefully considering his entire military service record and the issues he presented, determined he had been properly and equitably discharged and it voted to deny his request for an upgrade...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002343
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The FSM's record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 11 April 1966 and was honorably discharged on 14 March 19068 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. Further, the applicant should note that her father's honorable service between 11 April 1966 and 14 March 1968, is properly documented in the DD Form 214 the FSM was issued on 14 March 1968.
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130011133
Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 3 March 2000 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, AR 635-200 Chapter 10, KFS, RE-4 e. Unit of assignment: 1st AG Replacement, Yongsan Transition Center, Korea f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 29 May 1997, NIF g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 9 months, 23 days h. Total Service: 6 years, 7 months, 4 days i. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant did not provide any in support of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082349C070215
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 | CY1990-1993 | 9022464
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: He was promoted to the pay grade of E-4 on 6 January 1969 and he served in Vietnam until 18 June 1969.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008805
The applicant also submitted a personal request for a general discharge. On 17 October 1979 the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Board discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge during the 15 year statute of limitation.
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...