| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. G. E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Ms. Melinda M. Darby | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that except for the one mistake that resulted in his discharge, he served honorably and requests that his case be reviewed based on years of service and post-service good citizenship.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant’s military records show that he entered active duty on 18 February 1981 with a four-year active duty obligation. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training with award of the military occupational specialty (MOS) 13B (Cannon Crewman).
The applicant was promoted to specialist fourth class (E-4), his highest grade held, on 1 May 1983 while on a three-year assignment in Germany. During this tour of duty, he received four certificates of appreciation for his actions and dedication.
On 17 February 1984, the applicant was awarded the Good Conduct Medal for the period of 18 February 1981 through 17 February 1984.
The applicant reenlisted, again for four years, on 17 May 1985. At the time of his reassignment, from Germany to Ft. Stewart, Georgia in December 1985, he was on the command's E-5 promotion list.
On 20 April 1986, the applicant was listed as absent without leave (AWOL). He remained AWOL until he turned himself into military authorities at Fort Knox, Kentucky, on 19 August 1986. Prior to this AWOL there is no indication of any negative or derogatory notations in the applicant's file.
Court-martial charges were preferred for AWOL and the applicant was advised of his rights and options. After consulting with military counsel, the applicant submitted a formal request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 10. He acknowledged he had been advised of and understood his rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, that he could receive an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge, which would deprive him of many or all of his benefits as a veteran, that he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received an UOTHC discharge, and that there is no automatic upgrading or review of a less than honorable discharge. The applicant waived his right to a separation medical examination, to have his complete records available for the processing of this action, and to submit a statement on his own behalf.
The discharge authority accepted the request for discharge and directed that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and discharged under other than honorable conditions.
The applicant was discharged on 20 October 1986 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. The applicant's service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions. He was shown to have had 5 years, 4 months, and 5 days of service with 3 months and 29 days of lost time due to AWOL and 56 days of excess leave.
The applicant submits four personal statements from superiors and a fellow employee attesting to his character, dedication and devotion to his job and fellow man. They describe him as an honest and hard working man. He also submits a copy of a police records check that revealed no records of arrests or charges.
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 periods of AWOL in excess of 30 days.
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. 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.
2. The Board notes the applicant’s post service activities, however, these activities are not so exceptionally meritorious as to outweigh the offense that resulted in his discharge.
3. The Board concludes that the applicant has failed to demonstrate an error or injustice in the nature or characterization of his period of service.
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.
| CASE ID | AR2002066806 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020820 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | deny |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.7 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070018325
On 13 January 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service in accordance with chapter 10 of Army regulation 635-200 and directed she receive an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate and be reduced to private/E-1. The DD Form 214 she was issued at the time of her discharge shows that she was discharged for the good of the service with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions character of service. Furthermore,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012266
The applicant requests correction of his military records to show his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge upgraded to honorable. The applicants wife of 32 years provides a letter of support wherein she states the applicant and she raised three children. The applicant contends that his military records should be corrected to show his UOTHC discharge upgraded to honorable because his discharge was based on false information.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000565C070206
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 26 September 1986, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge, directed that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions, and reduced him in rank to E-1. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 22 October 1986 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635- 200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011442
On 7 April 1987, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows: * he was credited with the completion of 6 years, 2 months, and 15 days of net active service during this period of enlistment * he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial * he was issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge * he had lost time of 2 April 1986 and from 7 April 1986 through 8 April 1986 10. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075549C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 1 September 1987, the applicant was discharged in absentia, under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct – commission of a serious offense, with a discharge UOTHC. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002075549SUFFIXRECONYYYYMMDDDATE BOARDED2002/09/10TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011001
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Army policy states that although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, 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 for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 200308872C070215
The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should commence on the date of final action by the ADRB. On 3 November 1999, the ADRB determined that the applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088720C070403
The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should commence on the date of final action by the ADRB. On 3 November 1999, the ADRB determined that the applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075467C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. When he arrived at his sister’s house, he called his duty station, told them what had happened to him, and asked for transportation back to his unit. If the applicant’s story is true, the time to have presented it would have been at a court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011517
There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. His record of service shows he went AWOL and was AWOL for 122 days when he was apprehended and returned to military control.