| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Beverly A. Young | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a more favorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: He cannot claim any error or injustice, but he is trying to get a tarnished record cleaned up.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 March 1979 for a period of three years. He attended basic and advanced individual training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and was awarded military occupational specialty 15E (Pershing Missile Crewman).
Records show the applicant was AWOL from 30 August 1979 to 22 October 1979. Charges were preferred against the applicant on 24 October 1979 as a result of this offense.
On 20 November 1979, 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 if an under other than honorable discharge were issued. He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 6 December 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 13 December 1979 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had 7 months and 15 days of creditable service and 53 days of lost time due to AWOL.
There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
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. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.
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 type of discharge directed and the reasons for his separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case, particularly in view of his short period of service of which one-third was in an AWOL status.
4. 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.
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
AAO_____ LE______ JTM_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001061670 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011127 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19791213 |
| 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 | CY2006 | 20060015247
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 16 May 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions. Since the applicants brief record of service included one nonjudicial punishment and 105 days of lost time, his record of service was not satisfactory.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001269C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 2 February 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 13 February 1979 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060016974
The applicants record of service included one nonjudicial punishment and 1047 days of lost time. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge or a general discharge. ___William Crain_____ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20060016974 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20070531 TYPE OF DISCHARGE UOTHC DATE OF DISCHARGE 19820803 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR 635-200 Chapter 10 DISCHARGE REASON For the good of the service BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW...
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 | CY2004 | 20040010623C070208
The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable. There is no evidence in the applicant’s service personnel records which shows that he served in the U.S. Army Reserve following his discharge on 12 April 1979. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081273C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: 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 | 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 | CY2012 | 20120008115
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 11 April 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge and directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018806
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. In a statement he submitted in his own behalf, he stated the reason he felt he should be given a chapter 10 discharge is because he reenlisted in October 1978 for assignment to the 19th Support Command, Korea, and a special duty assignment. There is no...