Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade | Analyst |
Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Member | |
Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable and that he be given Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was a good soldier and that he would have gladly fought and died for his country. He also states that, while stationed in Germany, he was injured during live fire exercises and that it is documented in his medical record.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 March 1979 for a period of 3 years. He enlisted for the United States Army (USA) Combat Arms Unit/ Area of Choice Enlistment Option and training in Career Management Field 19, Armor Specialist. Following completion of all military training, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 19E, Armor, and was assigned to Germany.
On 19 September 1979, the applicant was promoted to private/E-2 and on 19 March 1980, he was promoted to private first class/E-3.
On 24 June 1980, the applicant fell down and injured his foot. He was evaluated by medical personnel and diagnosed with a sprained left ankle. He was placed on profile - no climbing for 48 hours.
On 26 October 1980, while in Germany, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty. His punishment consisted of reduction to private/E-2 and 14 days of restriction and extra duty.
While stationed in Germany with Company B, 4th Battalion, 73rd Armor, the applicant returned to the United States on ordinary leave. When his leave expired, he failed to return to his unit and, on 31 October 1980, his status was changed from ordinary leave to absent without leave (AWOL). He remained AWOL until 2 December 1980 when he surrendered to military authorities at Fort Dix, New Jersey. He was assigned to Company A, USA Personnel Control Facility (PCF), Fort Dix.
On 9 December 1980, the applicant departed the Fort Dix PCF in an AWOL status and remained absent until 15 February 1981 when he again surrendered to military authorities at Fort Dix. Court-martial charges were preferred against him.
On 10 March 1981, while being interviewed by the staff of the PCF, the applicant stated that he was using heroin in Europe and, when he returned to the United States on leave, he started using speed. He also stated that he did not go back to Germany because he was trying to get help for his drug problem. The applicant requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200.
The commander of the PCF contacted the applicant’s prior commander in Germany and obtained a brief history of his service there. The applicant’s prior commander noted that the applicant had been in a drug program since June 1980 and that he had been dropped from the program as a rehabilitation failure. The Drug and Alcohol Program documentation is not available.
The PCF commander contacted the office of the Judge Advocate General (JAG) to determine whether chapter 9 (substance abuse rehabilitation failure) or chapter 10 was the more appropriate chapter for discharge. The JAG office stated that either chapter would be appropriate. After reviewing all of the evidence, the PCF commander decided to process the applicant for separation under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200. The complete administrative separation packet is not in the record.
On 27 May 1981, the applicant was discharged from the Army under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200 by reason of administrative discharge - conduct triable by court-martial. He was credited with 1 year and 11 months of creditable military service and 102 days of lost time.
AR 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, 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 court-martial. 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. Although a complete administrative separation packet cannot be found in the applicant's records, the Board presumes Government regularity in the discharge process. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. In connection with such a discharge, the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge. Procedurally, the applicant would have been required to consult with defense counsel, and to voluntarily, and in writing, request separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, the applicant would have admitted guilt to the stipulated offenses under the UCMJ. In the absence of information to the contrary, 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. The Board notes that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and, considered the applicant’s entire record of service for the period under review, the Board is convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable.
3. The Board noted that the applicant’s medical records show that he injured his left foot while serving in Germany, however, the injury was not serious.
4. Granting access to VA benefits is not within the purview of this Board. The applicant should contact the Department of Veteran Affairs to determine eligibility for benefits.
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
__FNE__ ___TSK__ ___JTM_ DENY APPLICATION
CASE ID | AR2001061208 |
SUFFIX | |
RECON | |
DATE BOARDED | 20020110 |
TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19810527 |
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, c10 |
DISCHARGE REASON | In lieu of trial by court-martial |
BOARD DECISION | DENY |
REVIEW AUTHORITY | Director |
ISSUES 1. | |
2. | |
3. | |
4. | |
5. | |
6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004102910C070208
The evidence of record shows that on 30 July 1980, the applicant consulted with counsel and submitted a request for discharge from the service under chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board during its 15-year statute of limitations for an upgrade of her discharge. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but the separation authority may direct a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020458
The applicant states: a. On 18 June 1981, the applicant was discharged accordingly. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014292
The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. In his request for discharge, he acknowledged he understood if the discharge request were approved, he might be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091660C070212
The applicant submitted a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; a self-authored, Letter of Issues, dated 17 June 2001; a copy of a DA Form 4187, Personnel Action, dated 6 December 1979; a copy of his wife's death certificate; and a character reference letter, dated 4 March 2003, in support of his request for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant’s record does not contain his request for discharge for the good of the service under Army Regulation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070002429
Item 8 (Statement of Examinees Present Health and Medications Currently Used), shows the applicant noted, Epilepsy & Dilantin - Good. The applicant's military service records also contain an SF 88, dated 14 April 1980, prepared by the physician upon his medical examination of the applicant prior to his separation from the U.S. Army. The evidence of record shows the applicants medical condition (i.e., epilepsy) is documented in his military service records; specifically, in his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021578
The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070003794
On 6 January 1982, the major general serving as Commander, U.S. Army Aviation Center and Fort Rucker, Fort Rucker, Alabama, approved the applicant's request for discharge from the U.S. Army under the provisions of Chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 and directed that the applicant be furnished an under other than honorable discharge. The applicant contends, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge because the reason...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100015532
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040005386C070208
On 6 January 1982, the approval authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 and directed that he be separated with a UOTHC discharge in pay grade E-1. The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows that, on 23 February 1982, the applicant was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UOTHC discharge, due to conduct triable by court-martial. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006377
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. His record then shows the following: * absent without leave (AWOL) from Fort Jackson during the period 17 October 1978 through 27 November 1978 * returned to military control (RMC) at Fort Meade, MD on 28 November 1978 * transferred to the U.S. Army Personnel Control Facility (PCF), Fort Dix, NJ on 4 December 1978 * AWOL during the period 4 December 1978 through 17 March 1979 * RMC at Fort Dix on 18 March 1979 * AWOL during the period 5...