| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. G. E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his characterization of service be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that there were unusual circumstances that were beyond his control which caused him to make a mistake in judgment. He asks that the Board consider his otherwise good service and the fact that he repaid his indebtedness prior to his discharge to afford him an upgrade. In support of his application, the applicant submits a list and copies of money orders used in his reimbursement to the Government of $7000.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's complete records are not available however the applicant has provided copies of documents from his military records that show:
The applicant enlisted for four years and entered active duty on 1 December 1993. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training with award of the military occupational specialty 62J20 (General Construction Equipment Operator). He reenlisted on 8 July 1997, again for four years, and advanced to the rank of sergeant (E-5).
On 16 May 2000, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 92 (violating or failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation), Article 107 (signing a false record or other official document), Article 121 (wrongful appropriation of property of a value more than $100) and Article 134 (the specification appears to be willfully and unlawfully altering a public document).
While the charge sheet is not available, the record indicates that the charges arose because of the applicant’s failure to properly notify finance of his divorce. This failure resulted in the applicant fraudulently continuing to receive basic housing allowance beyond the appropriate cut off date. When he did notify the servicing finance unit, he submitted an altered divorce decree.
After consulting with military counsel, the applicant submitted a request for a discharge in lieu of court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, chapter 10, on 9 June 2000.
The applicant’s chain of command recommended approval of his request with a characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions. They noted that prior to this incident the applicant’s conduct was considered exemplary and that he had repaid the Government.
The discharge authority accepted the recommendations and the applicant was discharged 22 June 2000, in accordance with AR 635-200, chapter 10 with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.
The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board, citing basically the same arguments as are offered here. Any change of characterization or reason for discharge was denied by unanimous decision.
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.
The Manual for Courts-Martial, Table of Maximum Punishments, sets forth the maximum punishments for offenses chargeable under the UCMJ. A punitive discharge is authorized for offenses under Articles 92, 107, 121 and 134 under similar specifications.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:
1. The applicant’s discharge was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.
2. The applicant's request for a chapter 10 discharge, after consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received. His service is appropriately characterized by the offenses that led to the discharge, which outweigh his otherwise honorable service.
3. The Board rejects the applicant’s contentions that his situation was unique and mitigated his knowingly committing the offenses that led to his discharge.
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
__RVO__ __CLA___ __JTM __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001064583 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600231
The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I went into the military for a change of life, venture, career help, and to send money home to my mother for watching my son. 000118: Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct commission of a serious offense.Service Record was missing elements of the Summary of Service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050005426C070206
Michael J. Flynn | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. An UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate for members separated under this provision of the regulation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009736
The applicant requests, in effect, upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge (HD). The applicant states, in effect, that he served in the Army for more than 16 years and he did all he was asked to do. The applicant's contention that his UOTHC discharge should be upgraded to an HD because his offenses were the result of an honest mistake and based on his overall record of service was carefully considered.
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130013800
IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 4 April 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20130013800 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board found no cause for clemency and voted to deny relief. The record shows that on 15 August 2007, the applicant pleaded guilty to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015690
His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged as a result of a court-martial in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) with a bad conduct discharge. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Therefore, clemency in the form of an honorable or general discharge is...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500648
The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). Issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative (Civilian Counsel):“Whether the characterization of discharge was warranted given the circumstances of the offense charge and considering the entire service member’s exemplary record during the period of his enlistment. The Applicant’s violations of Articles 107, 108 and 121 are...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004359
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 27 FEBRUARY 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060004359 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice) states, in pertinent part, that in any case of pretrial confinement, the commander of the person confined will provide a...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500534
The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). As the representative, we ask that consideration be given to equitable relief, as this is a matter that involves a determination whether a discharge should be changed under the equity standards, to include any issue upon which the Applicant submits to the Board’s discretionary authority, under SECNAVIST 5420.174D, to include a review of his in-service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014999
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 May 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090014999 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on the date of his discharge shows that he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 3, by reason of court-martial, other. In accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the Army...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130019546
Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 1 June 2000 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, AR 635-200, Chapter 10, KFS, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: Chemical Aviation Company, U.S. Army Chemical Activity, Pacific, Johnson Island f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 15 October 1997, 4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 7 months, 17 days h. Total Service: 2 years, 7 months, 17 days i. On 12 May 2000, the separation...