| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Beverly A. Young | Analyst |
| Ms. Deborah Jacobs | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Elzey Arledge, Jr. | Member | |
| Mr. Donald Hupman | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be recharacterized to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he does not feel what he did was so wrong to be given an other than honorable discharge. He continues to state that he was stationed in Germany and wanted his family to be with him, but they would not come to Germany. He had been in the Army for seven years and liked being in the Army. In support of his application, he submits a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated 17 August 2001.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 December 1975 for a period of four years. He completed basic and advanced individual training and served in Germany as a medical records specialist.
In June 1977, the applicant departed Germany on ordinary leave and remained absent until he was apprehended by civilian authorities. He was returned to military control at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, on 4 June 1982.
On 10 June 1982, charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 21 June 1977 to 4 June 1982.
On 11 June 1982, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offenses charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA) if an UOTHC discharge were issued. The applicant did not submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 21 June 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed an UOTHC discharge.
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 7 July 1982 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He had 1 year, 7 months and 16 days of creditable service and 1,809 days of lost time due to AWOL.
On 8 March 1995, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. The Board, by unanimous vote, denied the applicant’s request.
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. 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.
2. 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 VA benefits. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.
3. The Board considered the applicant’s contention that he does not feel what he did was so wrong that he should have been given an under other than honorable conditions discharge.
4. In view of the applicant's record of AWOL for 1,809 days, it does not appear that his under other than honorable conditions discharge was too severe.
5. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for his discharge were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
6. 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.
7. 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
DJ______ EA______ DH______ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001061615 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011106 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19820707 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200,chapter 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | For the Good of the Service |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080710C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The appropriate authority approved his request on 28 February 1983 and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions. Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions while on excess leave, on 18 March 1983, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001126
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. 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. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000082C070205
The applicant states, in effect, that he served 6 years and received an honorable discharge; however, his last discharge was under other than honorable conditions and he desires an upgrade of that discharge because it has been over 20 years since he was discharged. After reviewing all of the evidence and testimony presented, the ADRB determined that his discharge was both proper and equitable under the circumstances and voted unanimously to deny his request on 7 May 1982. The U.S. Court of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085402C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He enlisted in Knoxville, Tennessee, on 3 January 1977, for a period of 3 years and training as a material supplyman. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091653C070212
The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a more favorable discharge. The application submitted in this case is dated 3 May 2003. The applicant consulted with counsel on 15 June 1979, at which time the counsel again advised the applicant of his rights and the repercussions of requesting and/or receiving a discharge under other than honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016743
The applicant provides: a. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC was considered appropriate at the time. The applicant's character reference letters and the certificates he provided showing his accomplishments since his discharge were all reviewed; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051441C070420
At this late date the Board will not second-guess the commander’s decision not to grant the applicant 45 days leave or to change the start date of his leave. While the Board takes cognizance of the applicant’s stated personal problems, this factor does not warrant the relief requested and it would not be appropriate to change the records to show that the applicant was discharged honorably from the reenlistment commencing on 14 January 1982. That all of the Department of the Army records...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100015843
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a more favorable discharge. The appropriate authority (a major general) approved his request on 20 December 1977 and directed that the applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011005
The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge or an entry level separation with service uncharacterized. On 26 September 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions. The applicants record of service included two nonjudicial punishments and 128 days lost time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016074
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. There is no evidence that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. _______ _ _x______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.