| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Stephanie Thompkins | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Member | |
| Ms. Terry L. Placek | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: He submits a copy of an Application for the Review of Discharge of Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States that contains a statement in support his request, concerning his efforts to set his life back in order.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years as a private, pay grade E-1, on 14 July 1981. He completed his basic and advanced training as a Fire Control Instrument Repairer.
He attained the rank of specialist four on 1 December 1982.
On 5 July 1983, a CID investigation was initiated concerning the applicant for wrongful possession and distribution of marijuana (hashish) on 30 June 1983.
On 3 August 1983, the applicant was charged with one specification of wrongful distribution of 2 grams of marijuana in the hashish form.
On 15 August 1983, his command reviewed the charges and recommended trial by Special Court-Martial empowered to adjudge a Bad Conduct Discharge.
On 25 August 1983, the applicant, through counsel, voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, stating that under no circumstances did he desire further rehabilitation and no desire to perform further military service. He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf to accompany his request for discharge. He also acknowledged he understood the possible effects of a UOTHC discharge.
On 13 September 1983, his commander approved his request for discharge for the good of the service.
On 23 September 1983, the appropriate authority approved his discharge and directed he be reduced to pay grade E-1 and issued a UOTHC discharge.
He was separated on 11 October 1983, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of court-martial. He was credited with 2 years, 2 months and 28 days net active service.
On 28 October 1989, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his 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 at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.
Paragraph 3-7 of this regulation 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. In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge to honorable. He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.
2. The applicant's request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with counsel, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received.
3. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and he should not now be allowed to change his mind about accepting the UOTHC discharge at this late date.
4. 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.
5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant
In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
_jhl_____ _tlp____ _jns____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002067833 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020509 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | A70 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068706C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant, as the widow of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests that her husband’s discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable. However, the Board also noted the FSM’s record of service included four nonjudicial punishments for drug and alcohol related incidents.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074334C070403
Prior to the period of service under review the applicant served honorably in the Regular Army (RA) from 20 April 1976-22 October 1979 and from 23 October 1979-25 July 1982. On the same date, at Building 1706, Flak Kaserne, Stuttgart, Germany, the applicant sold the undercover military police investigator (MPI) a $20.00 piece of marijuana in the hashish form. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008032
The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged for the good of the service - in lieu of a court-martial, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001013C070206
The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to general. On 13 December 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 11 January 1984 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635- 200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001013C070206
On 13 December 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 11 January 1984 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. ___James Vick_________ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20050001013 SUFFIX RECON DATE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005754
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his UOTHC (under other than honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD). Paragraph 3-7c(7) specifically addresses issuance of an UOTHC for discharges issued under the provisions of Chapter 10 of this regulation; and c. Chapter 10, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006947
The orders show the general court-martial convening authority approved the sentence and directed that, except for the bad conduct discharge, the sentence be executed. The records of the FBI are under the jurisdiction of that agency and the Board does not have the authority to direct that they correct those records. While the applicant is correct that the findings of the drug charges should also include the final disposition of the charges on the FBI RAP sheet, the Board does not have the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140005572
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant has provided two letters of support dated at about the time of his discharge. The applicant requests that his discharge UOTHC be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions because he was innocent of the charges.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007894
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. On 11 July 1985, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service in lieu of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012555
On 16 August 1983, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he receive an UOTHC discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. 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.