| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Rosa M. Chandler | Analyst |
| Mr. George D. Paxson | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs | Member | |
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was trained to be a paratrooper and nothing else mattered to him. Following an injury, he was reassigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and a “leg unit.” This caused his morale to suffer. He was young and immature, and he left Fort Sill and went back to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, on his own. He has matured now and realizes that he should have handled things differently.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
That prior to the enlistment under review, he served honorably in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) from November 1977 through July 1978. He also served honorably in the Regular Army (RA) from 1 August 1978 through 4 February 1982. He was trained in military occupational specialty (MOS)
13B (Cannon Crewman).
In October 1978, the applicant attended the basic airborne course at Fort Benning, Georgia. On 2 December 1978, he was assigned to the 82nd Air Borne Division, Fort Bragg. On 5 February 1982, while assigned to Fort Bragg, the applicant reenlisted in the RA for a period of 3 years and the station of choice option (Fort Sill). On 4 June 1982, he was reassigned to Fort Sill for permanent duty.
On 2 March 1983, the applicant left his unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status and he remained AWOL until he surrendered to military authorities at Fort Sill on 22 June 1983.
The applicant's records no longer contain all the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge process. However, an Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) Case Report and Directive, dated 15 February 1985, shows the applicant was charged with the above AWOL offense on 28 June 1983. On
29 June 1983, 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 did not submit a statement in his own behalf. On the same date, he was placed on excess leave pending discharge.
On 7 July 1983, the applicant’s unit commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge with a UOTHC discharge. On 12 July 1983, the applicant's intermediate commander also recommended approval with a UOTHC discharge. On 2 August 1983, the separation authority directed that the applicant be separated with a UOTHC discharge.
The applicant's records contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) that indicates that on 9 August 1983, he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, with a UOTHC discharge. It also shows that he completed 4 years, 8 months and 9 days of active military service and he had 113 days of lost time due to being AWOL.
On 15 February 1985, the ADRB denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
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 available records show that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service. Some of the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge process are missing. However, his records show the commission of at least one offense at Fort Sill that was punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge. The Board presumes regularity in the discharge process. The applicant has provided no information that would indicate the contrary.
3. The applicant's conduct was inconsistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and his overall quality of service does not warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
4. The Board noted that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. The Board found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation. Furthermore, at the time of his discharge, he was 23 years of age.
5. There is no evidence in the available record to indicate that the applicant was ever injured while serving in the military. The applicant reenlisted and selected Fort Sill as his station of choice for permanent duty. His explanation of the events leading to his discharge does not conform to the facts available in his records. The applicant reenlisted for an assignment at Fort Sill and, following his period of AWOL, he returned to Fort Sill, not Fort Bragg.
6. 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
_GDP____ __ DSJ_ __REB___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001063909 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020326 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19830809 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A71.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.7100 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060360C070421
On 5 December 1981, the applicant submitted a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) for a hardship discharge. On 11 February 1983, the applicant’s unit commander recommended that his request for discharge be approved with a UOTHC discharge. There is nothing in the applicant's record, and he has provided nothing, that indicates his recruiter promised him he would be allowed to continue his boxing career in the military.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070006959C071029
Qawiy A. Sabree | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 18 November 1981, the applicant was honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment.
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 | CY2014 | 20140009899
The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. Following consultation with legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, at the time of his discharge, there is no...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069578C070402
The Board also took into consideration the applicant’s age at the time of his enlistment. The Board took into consideration the applicant's entire record of service and was convinced that both the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were appropriate considering the facts surrounding his discharge. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002069578SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20020813TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052937C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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: Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001052937SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20010830TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGEDISCHARGE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003567
Following consultation with legal counsel, he requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) the applicant was issued shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a characterization of service of under other than honorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003470
Applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. However, his record contains a DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 16 February 1983 under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of a court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. _______ _ _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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052209C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Army policy states that although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061591C070421
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 trial by court-martial. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and...