| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Rosa M. Chandler | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Member | |
| Ms. Gail J. Wire | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That he received an Army Achievement Medal (AAM) and the Multinational Force and Observers Medal (MFO Medal) for his service during a peacekeeping mission in Egypt between 1981-1982. He also states that the military was a hardship for his wife, their children and other family members. His wife was young and it was difficult for her to leave her mother alone with her father who was ill and dying. He requested a compassionate reassignment to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, but it could not be done because of “red tape.” He felt he had exhausted all alternatives.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
That on 12 November 1980, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman). On 20 November 1980, he was assigned to Fort Benning, Georgia. He completed basic and advanced individual training and he was awarded MOS 11B. He also completed basic airborne training at Fort Benning. On 27 February 1981, he was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
On 23 September 1981, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), was imposed against the applicant for making a false official statement when he stated to his commander that another service member had nothing to do with the marihuana found in his [applicant’s] car. In fact, he knew the statement was false. His punishment included forfeiture of $279.00 pay per month for 2 months and correctional custody in the Correctional Custody Facility for 30 days.
The applicant departed his unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status from
4 January 1983 until he surrendered to military control at the Personnel Control Facility, Fort Bragg on 15 March 1983. On 18 March 1983, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for this AWOL offense. On the same date, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. He was advised that he could receive a UOTHC discharge. He authenticated a statement with his signature acknowledging that he understood the ramifications and effects of receiving a UOTHC discharge. The applicant did not submit a statement in his own behalf. On the same date, the applicant was placed on excess leave pending approval of his request.
On 23 March 1983, the applicant’s unit commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge with a UOTHC discharge. He stated that the applicant's conduct had rendered him triable by court-martial under circumstances which could lead to a bad conduct discharge. He also stated that, based on the applicant's previous record, punishment would have a minimal rehabilitative effect and that he believed a discharge would be in the best interest of all concerned. On 23 March 1983, the applicant's intermediate commander also recommended approval. On 31 March 1983, the separation authority directed that the applicant be reduced to pay grade E-1 and separated with a UOTHC discharge.
On 18 April 1983, the applicant was separated in absentia with a UOTHC discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. He had completed 2 years, 2 months, and 26 days of active military service and he had 70 days of lost time due to being AWOL.
The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows that he was awarded the AAM, the Army Service Ribbon, the Parachutist Badge, the Sharpshooter Qualification Badge (Rifle-M16), and the Expert Qualification Badge (Hand Grenade).
There is no evidence that the applicant ever requested that the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgrade his discharge during that board’s 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 was authorized, a UOTHC discharge was 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. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress. The type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge were appropriate considering the facts of the case.
3. The Board took into consideration the applicant's entire record of service, to include his awards, and was convinced that both the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were appropriate considering the facts surrounding his discharge.
4. There is no evidence that the applicant requested reassignment or that he had personal problems and sought assistance through his chain of command. Neither is there any evidence that he ever served in the Middle East or received the MFO Medal.
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
__INW __ __RJW__ __GJW__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001062888 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020312 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19830418 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A04.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.0400 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011452
The applicant requests correction of his records to show his award of the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) Medal. Although there are no documents in the applicant's records to show that he was awarded the MFO Medal, his records do show that he served in the Sinai as an MFO during the qualifying period for award of the MFO Medal. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by adding to item 13 of his DD Form 214...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606209C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) be corrected to show entitlement the Good Conduct Medal (GCM), the Multinational Force and Observers Medal (MFO) and that item 16 on his DD Form 214, be corrected to read yes for high school graduate or general equivalent diploma (GED). Effective 15 March 1985, personnel must served 6 months (170 days minimum with the MFO to qualify for the award. There is no evidence of record nor...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065178C070421
Accordingly, on 2 November 1984, the applicant was discharged from the Army after completing 5 years, 3 months, and 23 days of creditable military service and accruing 293 days of lost time. 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 at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016231
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states he returned to the United States from an assignment in Berlin, GE and he had 45 days of leave en route to his new assignment at Fort Lewis, WA. The record shows he reported to Fort Lewis and he was assigned to Company B, 2nd Battalion, 47th Infantry on 4 April 1983.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012508
The applicant requests that his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to reflect his service with the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) Peace-keeping force in the Sinai during the period 9 June to 1 December 1986 and his award of the Canadian Army Parachutist Badge. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by adding the Canadian Army Parachutist Badge and the EIB to his...
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 | CY2001 | 2001056343C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001056343SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20010830TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE19820311DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200, CHAPTER 10 DISCHARGE REASONA70.00BOARD DECISION(DENY)REVIEW AUTHORITYISSUES 1.144.70002.3.4.5.6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064332C070421
On the same date, the Cadre Review Board determined that the applicant should be separated under the On 6 October 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. Army policy states that a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a GD under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066731C070402
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068916C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: 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...