| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Ms. Deborah Jacobs | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr. | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his bad conduct discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was young and inexperienced when he entered the Army and that he made some bad decisions that have “haunted” him for over 20 years. He states that he married the mother of his son only to discover that she was unwilling to travel with him while he was in the Army. He notes that he departed AWOL (absent without leave) when he discovered that his spouse was being unfaithful and spending his support allotment on drugs and other men. He states that he subsequently returned to his military duties but was then denied leave by his unit. During the period he had requested leave, the applicant states that his mother died and that after she died he was never able to be part of his unit “knowing that (he) had a chance to see her alive and it was taken away from (him) by (his) unit.”
The applicant states he now has a wonderful family who “love and depend” on him and he would like to have his discharge upgraded to show them that he is someone they can all be proud of.
In addition to his self-authored statement, the applicant submits a 1996 certificate of achievement, a 1997 certificate indicating that he had successfully completed a “product assembler” course, and an undated certificate awarding him a high school GED (General Education Diploma).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant entered active duty on 27 March 1978 at the age of 18 with 10 years of formal education and a GT (general technical) score of 108. He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training and in October 1978 was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina. He was promoted to pay grade E-2 in December 1978.
In May 1979 the applicant commenced a series of AWOL periods which resulted in his punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) on four separate occasions and conviction by a summary and a special court-martial.
The sentence from his special court-martial, which was adjudged in November 1981 and approved in January 1982, included a bad conduct discharge and confinement at hard labor for 90 days. Following his release from confinement, in February 1982, the applicant again departed AWOL.
The applicant’s bad conduct discharge was executed on 24 June 1982. By the time of the applicant’s discharge he had accumulated more than 400 days of lost time and was nearly 23 years old.
Army Regulation 635-200 states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’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 clearly 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 discharge was accomplished in compliance with applicable laws and regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. While the Board has considered the applicant’s age at the time of his military service and his good post-service conduct, none of these factors, either individually or in sum, warrant the relief requested. Additionally, the Board notes that the applicant, when only 18/19 years old, successfully completed basic and advanced individual training and was promoted to pay grade E-2.
3. The applicant has presented no evidence that there were any mitigating factors that would excuse, or justify, his more than 400 days of lost time.
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 that 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
___DJ __ __EJA __ __DPH __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001062409 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011106 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 105.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064005C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. There is no evidence in available records that the applicant ever submitted an application for a hardship discharge. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested or to excuse the failure to file within the time prescribed by
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013204
In his voluntary request for discharge, the applicant indicated he understood by requesting discharge that the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge was authorized. On 5 April 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed the issuance of a DD Form 794A (Other than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate). The evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for an upgrade of his UOTHC discharge to a GD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066390C070402
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: Documents associated with the applicant's administrative separation action were not in records available to the Board.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010457
The applicant requests his Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge; the reason for his discharge be changed to "convenience of the Government; his reentry (RE) code be changed to RE-1; his Separation Program Designator (SPD) code be changed to match the new reason for his discharge; and his completion of the Airborne Course be added to his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). The applicant provides: * his DD Form 214 * four letters of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071493C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 25 January 1985 the United States Court of Military Appeals denied the applicant's petition for grant of review. There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, that his discharge was in error or unjust.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087433C070212
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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant has not presented and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071351C070402
The applicant was 18 years old at the time he entered active duty and had 12 years of formal education. In March 1974 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084866C070212
At the time of his enlistment he was 19 years old, had completed 12 years of formal education, and had one daughter, born in February 1982. In 1988 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s petition to upgrade his discharge. The Board notes that the applicant’s contention that his chain of command was aware of his marital problems and would not assist him, is not supported by any evidence in available records, or submitted by the applicant.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002366C070206
Carol A. Kornhoff | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 6 June 1995, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable and it voted to deny the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000526C070208
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. He related that he did not see his father again until he was 11 years old. Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, provided the authority for discharging enlisted personnel for unfitness.