| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. George D. Paxson | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas A. Pagan | Member | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that alcohol impaired his ability to serve in the Army and his record of service contains only nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for minor isolated offenses.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 22 October 1979, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. He successfully completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 05B10 (Radio Operator). His record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition and it confirms that the highest rank he attained while on active duty was private/E-1.
His disciplinary record includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on the following two separate occasions for the offenses indicated: 1 April 1980, for twice failing to go to his appointed place of duty and for disobeying a lawful order; and 15 August 1980, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty. In addition, on 7 November 1980 the applicant was barred from reenlistment and while he was assigned to Fort Stewart, Georgia, he went absent without leave (AWOL) from 15 May 1981 to 7 January 1982.
The applicant’s discharge packet, containing the specific facts and circumstances pertaining to his discharge processing, is missing from his military records. However, there is a properly constituted separation document (DD Form 214) on file that contains the authority, reason, and characterization of the applicant’s discharge. It confirms that he was administratively discharged on 12 February 1982, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of conduct triable by court-martial.
The separation document also verifies that the applicant’s service was characterized as UOTHC and that he had completed a total of 1 year, 7 months, and 28 days of creditable active military service. It also confirms that he had accrued a total of 238 days of lost time due to AWOL.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue of limitations.
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 court-martial charges have been preferred. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC 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 alcohol impaired his ability to serve; however, it finds this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.
2. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the Army. However, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 that contains the authority and reason for his separation. Therefore, the Board presumes government regularity in the discharge process.
3. The separation document confirms that the applicant was discharged for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by court-martial. Procedurally, this would have required him to consult with legal counsel to be advised of the basis for the contemplated court-martial, the rights available to him, and the effects of a UOTHC discharge. In addition, he would have been required to admit guilt to the stipulated offense under the UCMJ and to voluntarily request, in writing, an administrative discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.
4. The evidence of records shows the applicant had 238 days of lost time due to AWOL and twice accepted NJP for acts of misconduct. The Board concludes that these discreditable entries of misconduct in the applicant’s record were of such magnitude that it would prohibit an upgrade of his discharge.
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
__GDP__ __TAP__ __MHM__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001064668 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/02/21 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19820228 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200 Chapter 10 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | In Lieu of Trail by CM |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003575C070206
On 13 December 1977, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 13 December 1977, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The applicant's record of service shows charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL for 238 days.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084527C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059417C070421
On 17 December 1984, the Army Discharge Review Board determined the applicant’s discharge had been proper and equitable and denied his request for an upgrade to his discharge. It also notes that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally UOTHC and that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001059417SUFFIXRECONYYYYMMDDDATE BOARDED2001/09/13TYPE OF...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070012462C080407
There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. The regulation stipulates that an UOTHC discharge normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. The evidence of record further shows the applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in his receiving a punitive discharge, and that he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004101383C070208
On 1 August 1980, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive an UOTHC discharge. On 14 August 1980, the applicant was discharged accordingly. _ JOHN N. SLOANE____ CHAIRPERSON INDEX |CASE ID |AR2004101383 | |SUFFIX | | |RECON | | |DATE BOARDED |2004/08/DD | |TYPE OF DISCHARGE |UOTHC | |DATE OF DISCHARGE |1980/08/14 | |DISCHARGE AUTHORITY |AR 635-200 C10 | |DISCHARGE REASON |In Lieu of CM | |BOARD DECISION |DENY | |REVIEW AUTHORITY |...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079969C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 24 March 1982, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge. The separation document issued to the applicant upon his discharge confirms that 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 after completing a total of 1 year, 9 months, and 22 days of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060613C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015506C071029
On 17 February 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge, and directed he receive an UOTHC discharge. An UOTHC discharge normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. The evidence of record further shows that after being AWOL for more than 800 day, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in his receiving a punitive discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084881C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : That he believes the circumstances involved in his discharge warranted a better discharge. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020677
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). However, the record does contain a properly-constituted DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Personnel), in lieu of trial by court-martial. Although an honorable discharge (HD) or general discharge (GD) is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate.