| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade | Analyst |
| Ms. Jennifer L. Prater | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his characterization of service be upgraded from under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was informed that his UOTHC would be automatically upgraded to honorable after 7 years. He states that this has not occurred and that he is now requesting an upgrade. The applicant states that he was treated unfairly by his chain of command and was not allowed to protect himself from discrimination. He further states that he should have enlisted help outside his chain of command to stop the type of discrimination and prejudice he was experiencing. The applicant believes he served honorably for over 2 years.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 September 1979 for a period of 4 years. He enlisted for the Army Station of Choice Enlistment Option – Fort Hood, Texas, and Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 62B, Construction Equipment Repairer. Following all military training, the applicant was awarded MOS 62B and was assigned to Fort Hood as his first permanent duty station.
On 15 December 1981, the applicant was assigned to the 814th Engineer Company, 559th Engineer Battalion, with duty as an Engineer Equipment Mechanic.
On 2 March 1982, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being drunk and disorderly. His punishment consisted of reduction to private first class/E-3, forfeiture of $250.00 pay per month for 2 months, 45 days' extra duty, and 25 days' restriction.
On 16 March 1982, the applicant was charged with assaulting a specialist/E-4 by striking him in the face with a closed fist on 31 December 1981; disobeying a lawful order/command on 6 and 16 March 1982; being absent without leave (AWOL) from 9 thru 10 March 1982; failing to repair on 12, 13, 14, and 15 March 1982; and wrongfully burning himself by dropping cigarettes on his arm in a public place on 13 March 1982. He was also placed in pretrial confinement on 16 March 1982. The applicant's entire chain of command recommended trial by a special court-martial empowered to adjudge a bad conduct discharge (BCD). The Staff Judge Advocate concurred with the recommendation.
On 25 March 1982, after consulting with counsel about his rights, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
On 19 April 1982, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed issuance of an UOTHC discharge. Accordingly, on 26 April 1982, the applicant was discharged from the Army after completing 2 years, 7 months, and 22 days of creditable military service.
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, 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.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) within its 15-year statute of limitations.
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 found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the applicant's chain of command. The Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.
2. The record does not support, and the applicant has not presented any evidence to show, that he was told that his discharge would automatically be upgraded. Furthermore, the Army does not have a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.
3. The applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.
4. The Board noted that after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, the applicant admitted guilt to the stipulated offenses under the UCMJ. The Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.
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
__jlp___ __aao___ __rks___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001064448 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020604 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19820426 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, Ch10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.9405 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070016312
Director Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: M Chairperson M Member M Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant provides: a. After just 18 days in Germany, he deserted and returned to the United States.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017423
The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general under honorable conditions discharge (GD). There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15 year statute of limitations. However, the evidence is insufficient to support this claim.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007653
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate. In the absence of evidence showing error or injustice in the separation authority's decision, there is an insufficient basis upon which to upgrade his discharge to an HD or a GD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050008609C070206
In his request for discharge, the applicant also indicated that he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge(s) against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070018999
Director Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. However, it does include a properly constituted separation document (DD Form 214) that shows he was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The evidence shows the applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a trial by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025577
The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. On 18 May 1972, 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. The evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge to honorable.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100015566
On 10 December 1971, court-martial charges were preferred against him for this period of AWOL. In his request for discharge, he acknowledged he understood if the discharge request was approved, he may be discharged under conditions other than honorable and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100351C070208
Richard Dunbar | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 28 August 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request of an upgrade of his discharge. He was AWOL for 115 days and when he submitted his request for discharge, he indicated that he had no desire to perform further military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080001404
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 20 October 1994, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, and directed that he receive an UOTHC discharge, and that he be reduced to PV1 prior to the execution of his discharge. The restoration of the applicant's grade that resulted from the ADRB upgrade action was accomplished as a matter of equity and does not call into question the propriety of the original UOTHC discharge, or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130001788
The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show in: * Item 23a (Specialty Number and Title) the entry 62B3O vice 62B2O Engineer Equipment Mechanic * Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) the Army Good Conduct Medal and credit for the Tet campaign 2. Therefore, it would be appropriate to award him the first award of the Army Good Conduct Medal...