| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member | |
| Mr. Jose A. Martinez | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that someone in his unit committed a crime of which he had no knowledge and he and others were confined in the unit for not providing information on this crime. He also claims that he was told that his discharge would automatically be upgraded to an HD after 1 year.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 9 October 1979, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. He successfully completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS)
11B (Infantryman).
The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition and it confirms that the highest rank he attained while on active duty was private/E-2.
The applicant’s record does reveal an extensive disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for the offenses indicated on the following three occasions: 4 September 1980, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty; 16 February 1981, for demonstrating contempt towards a
non-commissioned officer (NCO) and failure to go to his appointed place of duty; and 6 July 1981, for demonstrating contempt towards a NCO.
On 4 August 1981, the applicant was notified by his commander that separation action was being initiated against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33b, for his frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. The commander cited the applicant’s consistent record of misconduct and lack of promotion potential as his reasons for taking this action. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation action and waived his right to consult counsel and elected not to submit a rebuttal statement in his own behalf.
On 10 August 1981, the applicant was barred from reenlistment. His commander stated the basis for this action was the applicant’s consistently poor personal appearance, his failure to obey the simplest of orders, his disrespect towards his chain of command, and his being a detriment to the good order, discipline, and esprit de corps of the unit.
On 1 September 1981, the appropriate authority approved the separation action and directed that the applicant be issued a UOTHC discharge certificate. Accordingly, on 4 September 1981, the applicant was discharged after completing a total of 1 year, 10 months and 26 days of active military service.
There is no evidence of record that shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 14-33b, then in effect, provided in pertinent part, for separating members for a pattern of misconduct, including frequent incidents of discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. A UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate for members separating under this provision.
Paragraph 3-7 provides that an HD is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.
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 administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations. 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.
2. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he believed his discharge would be upgraded after 1 year. However, the Army has never had a policy for the automatic upgrade of a service member’s discharge. The characterization of service at separation is based upon the quality of a soldier’s service, including the reason for separation. After a thorough review of the applicant’s service record, the Board finds that the type of discharge directed was appropriate considering all the facts and that it accurately reflects the overall character of the applicant’s service.
3. 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.
4. 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
__INW __ _ _TL __ __JAM __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001062392 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/12/18 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1981/09/04 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, Chapter 14 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Frequent Incidents of a discreditable nature |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008772
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). There is no indication that the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15 year statute of limitations. A complete separation packet that contained the separation authority's approval is not on available; however, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 that confirms the applicant was discharged under the provisions of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070000705
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-5-1, in effect at that time, prescribed the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated reasons. The regulation shows that the separation program...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010201
The applicant's records show he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 9 January 1980. There are no medical records in the applicants available Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) that indicate he was suffering from a disabling mental or physical condition at the time of his discharge processing. A UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate for members separated under these provisions of the regulation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072538C070403
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001486
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 18 August 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110001486 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 14 April 1981, the applicant's unit commander recommended his separation from the service under the provisions of paragraph 14-33b of Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities and an established pattern for shirking. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070017348
The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge, characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant states, in effect, that he received an UOTHC discharge for misconduct. The applicant's contentions and additional statement were considered; however, they do not support or provide a basis to upgrade his UOTHC discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100028279
On 14 September 1981, the applicant's commander initiated action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-33, based on frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. 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. __________x_______________ CHAIRPERSON I...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010120
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The applicant's record of service during his last enlistment included two NJP's. _____________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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012296
The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was discharged for misconduct, frequent incidents of a discreditable nature, which was evident by his six NJPs and one summary court-martial. Therefore, there is insufficient basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012456
Counsel states: a. The applicant remained assigned to this unit until he was reassigned to the Retraining Brigade, Fort Riley, KS, on 18 September 1981. c. Paragraph 4 of the ROP shows the results of the summary court-martial (SCM) the applicant received on 16 September 1981. Two DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action) show the applicant was placed in confinement on 16 September 1981, was present for duty on 9 October 1981, and the form was sent to the Commander, 5th Unit, Retraining Brigade.