| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Beverly A. Young | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Mr. John E. Denning | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he would like for the Board and the U.S. Army to forgive him for the incident that happened while he was in the Army from 1986 to 1988. He states that he served in the Army for ten years and was ready to die for his country. He further states that he is now disabled from the injuries he received in the Army and receives social security. He claims that he was young and was not thinking right at the time and would like for his discharge to be upgraded to a general under honorable conditions discharge.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Army on 18 July 1978 and completed training as a wire systems installer. He reenlisted twice and completed overseas assignments in Korea and Germany. He was promoted to the rank of sergeant in June 1983.
On 17 December 1986, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment for permitting a PV2 to drive his privately owned vehicle (POV) without a valid driver’s license.
The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not in his records. However, his records contain a Case Report and Directive from the Army Discharge Review Board. This report indicates that charges were preferred against the applicant on 23 March 1988 for dereliction of duty and for committing sodomy with a specialist four. The report further indicates that the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. The applicant elected to submit statements in his own behalf; however, his statements were not in his records.
The applicant received nonjudicial punishment again on 13 April 1988, for driving an uninsured and unregistered POV.
On 16 August 1988, the separation authority approved the discharge with issuance of an UOTHC discharge. The applicant was discharged on 26 August 1988 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service-in lieu of trial by court-martial. He completed 10 years, 1 month and 9 years of creditable service.
On 1 February 1991, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record.
2. The contentions of the applicant have been noted by the Board; however, the applicant has failed to submit sufficient evidence that would warrant an upgrade of his discharge. Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons for his separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
3. 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.
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
JNS______ BJE_____ JED_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001064939 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020214 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19880826 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200,chapter 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | For the Good of the Service-In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073470C070403
The Board considered the following evidence: On 4 April 1989, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. However, the applicant's contentions are not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010407C071029
Donald L. Lewy | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant states he was discharged with an honorable discharge his first enlistment. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017089
The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). On 23 March 1988, after having considered the applicant's request, the separation authority approved his request and directed that he receive a UOTHC discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. Although an HD or general discharge (GD) is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002726
The applicant's record contains a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) which shows he was charged with conspiring with PVT ED and PVT CM between 20 and 27 February 1988 by driving to Austin, TX, to purchase LSD with the intent to distribute. The applicant's chain of command recommended approval of his request for discharge for the good of the service and his discharge UOTHC. The characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally UOTHC and the evidence shows the applicant was aware of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608731C070209
On 20 September 1988, the applicant was reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and discharged, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with a discharge UOTHC. On 16 August 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicants request for an upgrade of his discharge. In consideration of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and in recognition of his more than 7 years, of good service, it would be unjust to consider his honorable discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000718C070206
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080001317
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 15 September 1988, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and that he be issued a UOTHC Discharge Certificate. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006707
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant provided a self-authored statement in which he states at the time of his enlistment, his recruiter, SSG J____B___, told him not to say anything about his medical history. On 14 April 1988, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 and directed a UOTHC discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004129
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091540C070212
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 MARCH 2004 DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003091540 On 21 May 2003, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.