| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Mark D. Manning | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyl | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the following items of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), dated 9 February 2001 be changed: (1) item 12b (Separation Date This Period); (2) item 18 (Remarks); (3) item 23 (Type Of Separation); (4) item 24 (Character of Service); (5) item 25 (Separation Authority; (6) item 26 (Separation Code; (7) item 27 (Reentry Code); (8) item 28 (Narrative Reason For Separation); and (9) item 29 (Dates Of Time Lost During This Period).
APPLICANT STATES: That he completed basic training with the intention of making the Army a career. He now feels the circumstances that followed were an unfortunate mistake. He relates the details of his enlistment and completion of basic training with a fractured foot. He indicates he went on leave and his car broke down on the way to the airport. He indicates he spoke with his unit and local recruiters, and over 4 months later, a recruiter arranged for a plane ticket to Louisville, Kentucky. He reported to and was out-processed from Fort Knox.
He states the circumstances leading to his AWOL (Absent Without Leave) and discharge were beyond his control.
The applicant did not specify what the requested items should be corrected to show.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
During the period 8 February through 31 March 1999, the applicant was a member of the Army Reserve Delayed Enlistment Program.
On 1 April 1999, he enlisted in the Regular Army; in pay grade E-2, for 3 years.
On 21 June 1999, although not in the available records, the evidence shows he was issued nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for an unidentified offense. A portion of the punishment was reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1.
On 8 August 1999, he absented himself by not returning from ordinary leave.
On 13 December 1999, he surrendered to military control at a recruiting station in West Palm Beach, Florida and was transported to Fort Knox, Kentucky.
On 21 December 1999, the unit commander preferred court-martial charges against him for being absent without leave for the period 9 August through 12 December 1999.
On 21 December 1999, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter
10. He acknowledged that he could receive a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge; that he was guilty of the charges against him; that he had consulted with legal counsel; and, that he had no desire to perform further military service.
On 22 December 1999, the applicant was placed on excess leave for an indefinite period.
On 19 December 2000, the appropriate separation authority approved his request, directed his reduction to pay grade E-1 and that a UOTHC discharge be issued.
On 9 February 2001, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, with a UOTHC discharge, under the above-cited regulation. His separation document indicates he had 1 year, 6 months and 3 days of creditable service, 126 days of lost time and 416 days of excess leave. He was assigned an RE-4.
On 14 December 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board found his discharge to be proper and equitable and denied his request for upgrade.
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service), then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provided, in pertinent part, that a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could at any time after the charges had been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. At the time of the applicant’s separation, the regulation provided for the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.
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 applicant chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial. Although he may now feel that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.
2. The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.
3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
4. The Board has noted all the items of his DD Form 214 that he wishes to have changed; however, there is no error or injustice in any of the items. He has not shown otherwise.
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
_mdm_____ _kak____ _tl_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001065910 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020423 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065298C070421
This action was taken by Fort Bragg, in spite of the fact that the applicant had clearly been present for duty at the PCF, Fort Knox, for eight months and had successfully completed a rehabilitation program. A Personnel Action (DA Form 4187), dated 19 October 1999, prepared by the PCF, Fort Knox, changed the applicant’s duty status from present for duty to AWOL, effective 15 October 1999, and on 29 December 1999, the applicant returned to military control at the PCF, Fort Knox. However, it...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067223C070402
On 12 September 2000, the applicant’s DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows that he was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial with a UOTHC 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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070016751
The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time of separation shows he completed 2 years, 2 months, and 9 days of active military service. The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time of his discharge shows that he was discharged for the good of the service with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. e. Evidence of record shows that the applicant received an under other than honorable conditions discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089505C070403
There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge under that board's 15-year statute of limitations. The evidence also indicates that the applicant's assigned RE-code of RE-4 was appropriate at the time of separation and that it is still appropriate. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it would not be in the interest of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067163C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge. On 26 June 1999, the applicant was discharged with an UOTHC discharge under the above cited regulation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083573C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He states, “but still could not control it.” In addition, he states, that he was absent without leave (AWOL) for a couple of days and subsequently put out of the military. 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...
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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001607
The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded. When asked why he went AWOL and what actions he had taken before going AWOL to solve the problem, the applicant stated, in effect, that he was AWOL from Fort Knox, Kentucky; that he was afraid to continue with the Army; and that he was homesick. On 13 July 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge and directed that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004102195C070208
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 16 December 1980, the applicant was separated in absentia with a UOTHC discharge for conduct triable by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is considered appropriate.
ARMY | DRB | CY2012 | AR20120018338
Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 November 2006 for a period of 3 years. On 7 May 2012, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request and directed discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 23 May 2012, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.