| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Member | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: No contentions submitted.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 20 November 1975, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 36C10 (Telephone Installer and Lineman). The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-4.
Between April 1977 and February 1978, the applicant accepted seven nonjudicial punishments under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for three occasions of disobeying a lawful order, for two occasions of failure to repair, for leaving his appointed place of duty without proper authority and for dereliction of duty. His punishment included forfeitures, restrictions, extra duty and a reduction to pay grade E-1.
The applicant’s military record indicates that he was counseled on numerous occasions for drinking during duty hours, for dereliction of duty, for abuse of off post privileges and passes and for disobeying a lawful order.
On 8 February 1978, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct. The commander’s recommendation was based on the applicant’s misconduct and action, which indicated that he could not be rehabilitated for productive military service. On the same day, the applicant acknowledged notification, consulted with legal counsel and waived consideration, personal appearance, and representation before a board of officers.
On 10 February 1978, a mental status evaluation found the applicant qualified for separation. There was no evidence of psychosis or neurosis or other disorders qualifying him for disposition through medical channels. He was considered mentally competent to participate in board proceedings. A medical examination found the applicant fit for retention.
On 6 March 1978, the Commanding General approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a Discharge Certificate Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. On 27 April 1978, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, with a discharge UOTHC. He had completed 2 years, 5 months and 8 days of creditable active service.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities desertion or absence without leaves. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.
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 evidence of record shows that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of service determination at the time of discharge was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.
3. Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
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
__jhl___ __rjw___ __rtd___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001063312 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020226 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19780427 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200-chp14. . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A60.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.6000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606005C070209
On 18 January 1978, the applicants commander officially recommended that the applicant be discharged under paragraph 13-5, Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature; He indicated that the applicants conduct and efficiency were unsatisfactory; that the applicant was sent to the USARB for the purpose of receiving correctional training and treatment necessary to return him to duty as a well-trained soldier with improved attitude and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062873C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The board recommended that the applicant be discharged for misconduct. On 22 June 1979, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct with a discharge UOTHC.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070009917
On 20 October 1978, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-33b(1) by reason of Misconduct, with a discharge UOTHC. The contentions of the applicant were carefully considered; however, there is no evidence and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that shows he was diagnosed with and/or treated for a mental or medical condition at the time of his discharge. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711421
On 27 October 1978, the applicant was discharged in pay grade of E-1 under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14. 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 has submitted no additional evidence to show why his discharge should be further upgraded to fully honorable.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110022414
However, his record contains a DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) which shows he was discharged from active duty in pay grade E-1 on 14 June 1978 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33, for Misconduct. On 24 April 1987, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. However, the evidence shows he was discharged on 14 June 1978 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33, for misconduct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002083104C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On the same date, the approval authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be separated for misconduct with a UOTHC discharge. On 20 October 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003658C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 19 December 1978, his unit commander notified the applicant that separation action was being initiated on him under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, based on his frequent violations of the UCMJ in a ten-month period. On 30 January 1979, the separation authority directed the applicant be discharged under the provisions of paragraph 14-33b, Army Regulation 635- 200, by reason of misconduct (frequent incidents of a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006387
The applicant requests that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory, but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010825
On 22 October 1979, the applicant's commander advised the applicant he was taking action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, due to conviction by civil court. On 28 November 1979, after consulting with counsel, the applicant requested consideration of his case by an appearance before a board of officers. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079904C070215
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...