| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Joyce A. Hall | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Stanley Kelley | Member | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC).
APPLICANT STATES: No contentions.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 4 April 1978, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 71L10 (Administrative Specialist). The highest pay grade he achieved was pay grade E-3.
On 30 December 1978, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for missing a movement. His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $97.00 pay ($50.00 suspended until January 1979) and 14 days extra duty.
On 14 June 1979, the applicant accepted an NJP for failure to repair. His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-2 (suspended until August 1979) and 10 days extra duty.
On 1 April 1980, while assigned to a unit in Germany, court martial charges were preferred against the applicant for stealing, with force and violence, a wallet containing $39.50 in U. S. currency from a fellow enlisted person.
On 16 June 1980, 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 court-martial. The applicant also acknowledged that by submitting the request for discharge he was admitting his guilt of the charges that were preferred against him. 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. The applicant elected to submit a statement in his own behalf; however, his statement is missing from his record.
A mental evaluation found the applicant fit for retention. The applicant declined
a separation physical.
On an unknown date the applicant’s unit commander recommended discharge from the service with a General Discharge Certificate.
On 4 August 1980, the intermediate commander recommended approval of a general discharge.
On 25 August 1980, the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the separation action and recommended approval with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On the same day, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.
On 17 September 1980, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with a discharge UOTHC. He had completed 2 years, 5 months and 14 days of creditable active service.
On 8 June 1993, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority of 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.
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 provision 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 type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
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
__inw___ __sk____ __kah___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001061111 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011115 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19800917 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, Chapter 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A70.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.7000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017778
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. He was credited with completing 4 months and 26 days of active service and time lost from 13 November 1979 through 20 January 1980, 17 through 21 May 1980, and 23 May through 14 July 1980.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073721C070403
In attachment # 2, he requests an upgrade of his discharge to general under honorable conditions based on his previous good service. Chapter 10 provided, in pertinent part, that a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could at any time after the charges had been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711486
APPLICANT STATES : That he enlisted for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 52B. The applicant received an Enlisted Evaluation Report (EER) for the period March - July 1978, during which period he worked in duty MOS 63B. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004617
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Chapter 10 of that regulation provides 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. Although an HD or GD is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021019
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 18 July 1980, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed he receive a UOTHC discharge. His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement that would have supported the issuance of an HD or a GD by the separation authority at the time of his discharge or that would support an upgrade to an HD or a GD at this time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073146C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On the same day his commander recommended that the applicant be discharged for the good of the service and issued an UOTHC discharge. On 20 November 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057974C070420
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The Board considered the following evidence: His Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty DD Form 214, item 29, (Dates of Time Lost During This Period) shows the same AWOL dates.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001211C070206
Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 25 January 1980, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against them...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001211C070206
Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 25 January 1980, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against them...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072697C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The appropriate authority (a major general) approved his request on 15 July 1980 and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against them or of a lesser included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable...