| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that because he was very young and unsure of what he wanted in life, he believes that the narrative reason for separation should not be “In Lieu of court-martial”. He also believes that the date of time lost should also be eliminated. The applicant further states, that he now has a family and is trying to purchase a home. He also believes that those items affected or may have affected his job opportunities.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 13 April 1983, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 15E10 (Pershing Missile Crewmember). The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-3.
On 10 July 1984, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment NJP), under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 24 to 26 May 1994 and for failure to repair. His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-2 (suspended until 1 December 1984), a forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for 2 months, 30 days restriction and extra duty.
On 17 August 1984, the applicant accepted an NJP, under Article 15, UCMJ, for two occasions of being AWOL from 25 June to 2 July 1984 and from 28 to
30 July 1984, for breaking restriction and for failure to repair. His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of $285.00 pay per month for 2 month, 45 day restrictions and extra duty.
On 21 November 1984, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for two specifications of being AWOL from 24 August to 2 September 1984 and from 3 September until on or about 20 November 1984.
On the same day, after consulting with legal counsel the applicant voluntarily without any coercion 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 acknowledged that by submitting the request for discharge he was also admitting that he was guilty of the charges 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. He also acknowledged and understood that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an under other than honorable discharge. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf, but declined to do so.
A Report of Medical Examination found the applicant fit for retention.
On 20 December 1984, the Commanding General approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of a Discharge Certificate Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. On 31 December 1984, 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 under other than honorable conditions. He had completed 1 year, 7 months and 29 days of creditable active military service.
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.
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 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.
3. There is no indication that his request for discharge was made under coercion or duress. The applicant declined counsel, waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers, and acknowledged that he understood the effects of discharge under other than honorable conditions. He also acknowledged that he understood that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because the type of discharge he received; and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and VA benefits.
4. The applicant states, that because he was young and unsure of what he wanted in life, the narrative reason for separation should not state “In lieu of court-martial” and his dates of lost time should be eliminated from his discharge papers. However, this Board believes that applicant's contentions, that he was young and unsure of what he wanted in life is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.
5. Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
6. 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___ __mhm___ __bje___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001061290 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011018 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19841231 |
| 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 | CY2009 | 20090000457
The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. The appropriate authority (a major general) approved his request on 29 March 1984 and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068504C070402
The Board considered the following evidence: On 12 October 1978, 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. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002068504SUFFIXRECONYYYYMMDDDATE BOARDED2002/06/11TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE1978/10/12DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200,chapter 10 .
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007878
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Charges were preferred against the applicant on 30 May 1984 for being AWOL from 9 April 1981 to 19 May 1984. 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 discharge and they must indicate that they have been briefed and understand the consequences of such a request as...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001461
On 19 August 1975 after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a voluntary request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10. On 29 August 1975, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Consulting counsel would advise the member...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017297
He acknowledged he understood if his discharge request was approved, he might be discharged under conditions other than honorable. On 16 April 1975, the separation authority approved his request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. At the time of the applicant's separation, an under other than honorable conditions discharge was appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021571
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 26 June 1969, the applicant's commander imposed a bar to reenlistment against the applicant. On 17 July 1969 after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations General), chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016592
The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to honorable. On 5 November 1984 after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against him or her or of a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010878
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should commence on the date of final action by the ADRB. As a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076226C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He further states that he did not want to enlist at the time but had no choice under the circumstances. He also states that he was ill-prepared mentally to be in the Army and did not receive the medical assistance he needed at the time to deal with what he considered a miserable and depressing environment.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062783C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 17 October 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. There is no evidence in the available records to demonstrate that the applicant’s punishment was unfair.