| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Ms. Jennifer L. Prater | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: That he completed retraining. He was asked if he would like to stay in or be discharged. The type of discharge he would get was not explained to him. He needs the upgrade to get service-connected disability. He provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 June 1978. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 19D (Cavalry Scout).
On 8 January 1979, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 13 December 1978 to on or about 5 January 1979.
On 24 July 1979, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial on three specifications of absenting himself from his place of duty and two specifications of disobeying a lawful order. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 4 months, to forfeit $279.00 pay for 4 months, and to be reduced to Private, E-1. He was confined to the U. S. Army Confinement Facility, Mannheim, Germany. He transferred to the U. S. Army Retraining Brigade, Fort Riley, KS on or about 20 September 1979. On 28 September 1979, the unexecuted portion of his sentence to confinement at hard labor was suspended until 1 February 1980.
On 6 November 1979, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for failing to go his appointed place of duty.
On 7 November 1979, the applicant’s Retraining Brigade unit commander recommended the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct – frequent incidents of a discreditable nature. The commander cited the applicant’s numerous counselings by members of the leadership team and members of the professional staff agencies as the reasons for the proposed separation.
On 13 November 1979, the applicant was advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action. He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived personal appearance before such a board, and elected not to submit a statement on his behalf. He acknowledged that he
understood that, as the result of issuance of a discharge UOTHC, he could be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws and that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.
On 19 November 1979, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.
On 20 November 1979, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct. He had completed 1 year, 1 month, and 22 days of creditable active service and had 89 days of lost time (23 days AWOL and 66 days confinement).
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed and an unfit medical condition is not the direct or substantial contributing cause of his misconduct. A discharge UOTHC is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter.
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. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
2. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. The evidence shows that he was counseled and informed of the consequences of receiving a discharge UOTHC. Considering his record of service, the characterization of his discharge as UOTHC was and still is appropriate.
3. 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
__jlp___ __mhm___ __rks___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001061148 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011120 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19791120 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, ch 14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A64.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064332C070421
On the same date, the Cadre Review Board determined that the applicant should be separated under the On 6 October 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. Army policy states that a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a GD under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024766
He departed Germany on 30 November 1978 to serve his sentence to confinement in the States. His unit commander initiated action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-33b(1), for misconduct, due to frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003769C070206
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. There is no indication in the record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within the 15- year statute of limitations of that board. Additionally, paragraph 14-39 states that an under other than honorable discharge certificate is normally appropriate for a member who is discharged for acts and patterns of misconduct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074303C070403
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: On 20 October 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008367
On 8 December 1978, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Chapter 10 (Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial), Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel), and understood that he could request discharge for the good of the service because charges had been preferred against him under the UCMJ which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. The applicant also understood that if his request for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711421
On 27 October 1978, the applicant was discharged in pay grade of E-1 under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14. 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 has submitted no additional evidence to show why his discharge should be further upgraded to fully honorable.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012805
The complete discharge packet pertaining to the applicant's discharge proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, is not contained in his available military records. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066379C070402
On 6 November 1978, the separation authority approved the board of officers recommendation and directed that the applicant be discharged from the service for misconduct due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with a general discharge. In accordance with a recommendation from a board of officers, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct. The Board reviewed the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075015C070403
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he served 3 years, 11 months, and 19 days beyond his ETS date and that, upon being released from the United States Disciplinary Barracks (USDB), he should have been honorably discharged. On 30 May 1979, the unit commander recommended approval of the request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 and the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions. Accordingly, on 15 June 1979, the applicant was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120000986
The applicant did not provide any evidence. A properly-constituted DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) that shows he was discharged on 5 July 1979 under the provisions of paragraph 14-33b of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), for misconduct (Frequent Involvement in Incidents of a Discreditable Nature with Civil or Military Authorities) in the rank/grade of private/E-1, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. However, his...