| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade | Analyst |
| Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to reflect his overall quality of service.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that 19 years have passed since he was discharged and he believes it is an injustice for the record to remain as it now is. He states that he has been a good citizen since discharge and believes that he can still contribute to his country and government.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the United States Army on 24 October 1975 for a period of 4 years. Following completion of all military training, the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B, Infantryman, and was assigned to Fort Lewis, Washington, as his first permanent assignment.
On 21 December 1977, the applicant was transferred to Fort Ord, California. On 28 February 1978, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for willfully disobeying a lawful order. His punishment consisted of reduction to private first class/E-3 (suspended), forfeiture of $50.00 pay for one month, and 10 days' extra duty.
On 23 April 1979, the applicant was separated with an honorable characterization of service for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. He reenlisted on 24 April 1979 for a period of 6 years.
On 1 November 1979, the applicant was reassigned to Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. On 7 July 1980, the applicant accepted NJP for unlawfully grabbing a noncommissioned officer (sergeant/E-5) by the wrist and pushing him off of a chair and onto the floor. His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $156.00 pay for one month (suspended), 14 days' extra duty, and 14 days' restriction (suspended).
On 4 June 1981, the applicant accepted NJP for dereliction of duty in that he failed to stay awake, as it was his duty to do so as Charge of Quarters. His punishment consisted of reduction to specialist/E-4 (suspended) and 15 days' restriction.
On 2 September 1981, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from his place of duty from 4 to 6 July 1981; through design missing movement on 2 July 1981; failing to reside in his room on 2 July and 10 July 1981 after being placed on quarters for 72 hours; and for stealing United States Currency of about $260.00, the property of a private/E-1 on 2 May 1981.
On 9 September 1981, the applicant was arrested and confined by civil authorities on extortion charges.
On 21 October 1981, while in the hands of civil authorities, and after consulting with counsel about his rights, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant provided a statement in his own behalf in which he stated that he knew he was facing serious charges and if he could make them disappear he would without hesitation. He stated that he felt it in his and the Army's best interest that he be administratively discharged. He concluded his statement by asking that the request be granted and that he be discharged with at least a general discharge.
On 23 October 1981, the applicant's chain of command recommended approval of his request with a UOTHC discharge.
On 28 October 1981, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed issuance of an UOTHC discharge. Accordingly, on 25 February 1982, the applicant was discharged from service after completing 6 years, 4 months, and 3 days of creditable military service.
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 under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
On 17 January 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.
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 carefully reviewed all of the applicant’s faithful and honorable service as well as his misconduct. The Board determined that these incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant’s service below that meriting a general or fully honorable discharge.
2. The Board notes the applicant’s letter with his application outlining his successful accomplishments since separation from active duty. The applicant is to be commended for his efforts. However, these accomplishments do not provide the Board a basis upon which to grant relief.
3. The applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.
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 evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__sac___ __mhm___ __rks___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002068280 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020801 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19820225 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, chapter 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.9405 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084160C070212
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. On 24 August 1981, the unit commander initiated action to discharge the applicant from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, for misconduct because of frequent incidents of discreditable nature with civil or military authorities and an established pattern for shirking. The applicant's chain of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065559C070421
On 14 September 1981, the applicant was notified of pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. While assigned to Fort Hood, Texas, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment for being absent for one duty day. In reviewing the applicant’s record, the Board noted his record of indiscipline, to include nonjudicial punishments and a special...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070009691
However, it appears that the separation authority approved the applicants separation for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) and directed the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade prior to discharge and be issued an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) the applicant was issued at the time of his discharge confirms he was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003054
Included in the medical records are three DA Forms 1051 (Report of Injury) that show: a. he was hospitalized from 29 February to 3 March 1979 for injuries to his face and a mild concussion following an altercation in a civilian bar; b. on 16 July 1980, he received a head injury. The separation authority approved the separation action and directed that the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and issued a UOTHC discharge. The applicant was discharged on 15 August 1981 under the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010269
He was accordingly discharged from military service on 28 May 1981. The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms that he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 11 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) with a bad conduct discharge as a result of Court-Martial. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079157C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 24 July 2001, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intention to initiate separation action under the provisions of paragraph 14-12b, Army Regulation 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. On 7 November 2001, the separation authority disapproved retaining the applicant for 6 months and directed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019023
The applicant requests his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge. On 3 August 1981, the applicant's company commander requested that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Separations), paragraph 14-33, for misconduct due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074424C070403
His request was approved by the appropriate authority and the applicant was issued an UOTHC Discharge Certificate on 15 May 1981. There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board to upgrade his discharge, and the time to file an application with that Board has now expired. DISCHARGE REASONBOARD DECISION(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)REVIEW AUTHORITYISSUES 1.A76.002.A92.213.4.5.6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060585C070421
The regulation states that a member discharged for desertion and absence without leave who has returned to military control will be furnished an honorable, general, or under other than honorable conditions as determined by the convening authority. The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included two nonjudicial punishments and 451 days of lost time and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014083C071029
The evidence of record shows that on 21 December 1982, his unit commander notified the applicant that he was recommending that he be discharged from the Army under the provision of Army Regulation (AR) 635- 200, chapter 14, for misconduct. The applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 14, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge, in the rank and pay grade of Private, E-1, on 11 February 1983. The evidence shows that in addition to the court-martial...