| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Joyce A. Wright | Analyst |
| Ms. Shirley Powell | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Stanley Kelley | Member | |
| Mr. Elzey J. Arledge | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That court-martial charges were brought against him for fraternization, that he accepted a chapter 10 discharge from the military on the advice of his legal counsel, and has regretted his decision. He has graduated from the New World College with a Business Major, taught in the public school system, and taught special programs for problem teenagers. Since his discharge, he has tried to make the right choices and improve himself at every opportunity and feels that his discharge should be upgraded. In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), two character reference letters, and a course completion certificate from the New World College.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show he enlisted on 23 June 1975, as a military policeman.
The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records. However, his Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) Case Report and Directive shows that he was advised by counsel on 2 September 1982, requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, and declined to submit a statement on his behalf. His ADRB report indicated that he was facing a court-martial based on the following charges; attempting to place his arm around and kiss a female trainee; attempting to engage in social conversation and date a trainee; dereliction of duty; and communicate indecent language to a female trainee. On 21 September 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request with the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 1 October 1982, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. He was furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate. He had a total of 7 years, 3 months, and 10 days of creditable service.
The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 2 October 1983. The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and equitable and denied his request on 4 June 1984.
The applicant provided two character reference letters, which state that he possessed strong character, performed his duties in an outstanding manner, was a devoted family man, involved in various community activities, and proved himself to be an exemplary NCO on and off duty.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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 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. 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. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that court-martial charges were brought against him for fraternization and that he accepted a discharge based on the advice of legal counsel. The Board also notes that the applicant was afforded the opportunity to accept a court-martial, which would have asserted his innocence, but accepted to be discharged on the advice of his counsel.
2. The Board also notes the applicant’s character references and his certificate, which shows that he completed his course of study in Business Management and Computers Program; however, this evidence is not sufficient enough to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
3. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
4. The type of separation directed and the reasons for that separation appear to be appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.
5. 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.
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
__sp__ ___sk_____ ___ea____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001064303 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020319 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19821001 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR .635-200 C 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011912
The applicant states: a. his narrative reason for discharge and the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice]) charges violate the Military Whistleblower Protection Act; b. an error or injustice occurred, making a discharge upgrade as well as other equitable remedies proper and appropriate; c. he was a captain (CPT)/O-3 serving in the capacity of a legal assistance and claims attorney when he formed an attorney-client relationship with a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007313
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 September 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080007313 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within the ADRB's 15-year statute of limitations. In accordance with Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records is not empowered to set aside a conviction.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001435
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). In his request for discharge, he indicated he understood that if his request for discharge was accepted, he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. The applicant's record contains no documentation that shows he submitted a request for a hardship discharge or compassionate reassignment.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000120
The applicant provides his statement through his counsel. The applicant's record shows that on 25 May 2006, he submitted a request for resignation for the good of the service in lieu of a general court-martial based on the court-martial charges preferred against him on 8 May 2006. There is no evidence in the available records and the applicant or counsel has not provided sufficient evidence showing that the contested report was unjust or prepared in error.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019190
The applicant requests: * an upgrade his bad conduct discharge (BCD) to honorable * a change in the reason of his discharge from "as a result of court-martial" to "expiration of term of service (ETS)" 2. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070012888
This means the applicant had no opportunity to review that information allegedly in the IO's informal investigation and his right to due process was violated because he had a right to review relevant evidence; e. the GOMOR and referred OER were based on the IO's alleged investigation but since no "true" investigation took place, there was no Report of Investigation to which the applicant could respond; f. the applicant did not violate Article 133 of the UCMJ. The CG indicated that he was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013883
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that her discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a more favorable discharge. Chapter 10 provides 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 at any time after charges have been preferred.
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130009586
The applicant states, in effect, that an upgrade of his discharge will help him to continue to serve and progress through the ranks as a government employment. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 13 May 2005 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, Chapter 10 KFS, RE-4 e. Unit of assignment: PCF Spec Proc Co, Fort Knox, KY f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 18 October 1996, 3 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 8 years, 1...
ARMY | DRB | CY2012 | AR20120022605
On behalf of the applicant, counsel requests the under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable and change to the narrative reason for his discharge to Expiration of Term of Service. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015537
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 18 March 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090015537 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. 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. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the discharge appropriately...