| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller | Analyst |
| Ms. June Hajjar | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Member | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he did not go before a court. He made a statement, saying that he would leave the service for the good of the service. He also states, that he wrote that statement because he was on drugs and alcohol.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 9 December 1969, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army for 6 years, with 2 years, 2 months and 13 days of prior active service. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11C10 (Infantryman Indirect Fire Crewman). The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-5.
Between February and June 1972, the applicant accepted five nonjudicial punishments under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for two occasions of failure to repair, for two occasion of dereliction of duty and for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 15 January to 7 February 1972. His punishment included forfeitures, restrictions, extra duty, and a reduction to pay grade E-1.
On 3 March 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 24 May to 3 October 1974, from 5 to 14 November 1974 and from 7 January to 1 March 1975.
On 14 March 1975, after consulting with legal counsel the applicant voluntarily without any coercion requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant acknowledged by submitting this request for discharge, that he was acknowledging that he understood the elements of the offenses charged and that he was guilty of the charges that were preferred against him. The applicant waived further rehabilitation, because he had no desire to perform further military service. The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf. The applicant stated, that he wrote a statement in his behalf; however, the statement is missing from his file. A Report of Mental Status Evaluation found the applicant mentally fit for retention.
On 24 March 1975, the Commanding General approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of a Discharge Certificate Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. On 27 March 1975, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with a discharge UOTHC. He had completed 4 years,
8 months and 10 days of creditable active military service during this enlistment and 219 days of time lost.
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 is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally 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.
3. The Board has noted the contentions of the applicant. However, they are not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record. Even after appropriate and proper consultation, the applicant declined counsel, waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers, and acknowledged that he understood the effects of a discharge UOTHC.
4. The discharge process was in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the applicant's service was appropriately characterized.
5. Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
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
__jh____ __kak___ __rwa___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001064161 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020205 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19750327 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200,chp10 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A70.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.7000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606774C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 24 June 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 6 to 22 June 1975 and for breaking restriction. On 18 July 1975, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with a discharge UOTHC.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075308C070403
On 30 April 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded 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: There is no evidence to show that he made his command or any other agency aware of any personal problems or that he attempted to resolve his problems in an administratively acceptable manner (e.g., a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058208C070421
He did not return from leave and was reported AWOL from 17 September 1974 to 24 January 1975. On 14 December 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded 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 | CY2001 | 2001051392C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 19 March 1974, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years with 3 years, 7 months and 18 days of prior honorable service. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001051392SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20010320TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE19760121DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200,chp10 .
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059745C070421
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: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068504C070402
The Board considered the following evidence: On 12 October 1978, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge UOTHC. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002068504SUFFIXRECONYYYYMMDDDATE BOARDED2002/06/11TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE1978/10/12DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200,chapter 10 .
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075966C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant was granted leave in the States from 9 November through 8 December 1974. On 19 October 1975, the applicant surrendered to military authorities.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070720C070402
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: 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 | CY2001 | 2001051293C070420
The Board considered the following evidence: 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051914C070420
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: 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.