| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member | |
| Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to general.
APPLICANT STATES: That he needs his discharge upgraded to general so he can obtain medical benefits from the Veterans Administration. He also contends that at the time of his discharge he was told that he would receive a general discharge.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted on 3 November 1975 for a period of 3 years. He successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was transferred to Germany for duty as a chaparral crewman.
The applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) on 12 May 1977. He was apprehended by civil authorities and returned to military control on 2 August 1977. On 5 August 1977, charges were preferred against the applicant for the AWOL period.
On 5 August 1977, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He indicated in his request that he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and that he had been advised and understood of the possible effects of a Discharge Certificate Under Other than Honorable Conditions; that he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits; that he may be ineligible for many or all Army benefits administered by the Veterans Administration; and that he may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law. He also acknowledged that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an undesirable discharge. The applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
The intermediate commander recommended that the applicant’s request for discharge be approved and that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions.
On 23 August 1977, 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 13 September 1977 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. He had served 1 year, 7 months and
13 days of total active service with 86 days lost due to AWOL.
On 3 September 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade to honorable.
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.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.
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 considered the applicant’s contention that he needs his discharge upgraded to general so he can obtain medical benefits from the Veterans Administration. However, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of obtaining medical benefits.
2. The Board also considered the applicant’s contention that at the time of his discharge he was told that he would receive a general discharge. However, there is no evidence of record available to the Board, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support this contention. Evidence of record does show that on 5 August 1977, after consulting with counsel, the applicant indicated in his voluntary request for discharge that he understood if his request was accepted that he might be discharged under other than honorable conditions.
3. The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included a 82-day AWOL period terminated by apprehension by civil authorities and determined that his record of service was not satisfactory. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to a general discharge.
4. 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.
5. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
6. 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.
7. 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___ JTM_____ KWL_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002068506 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020507 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19770913 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 Chapter 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | For the good of the service |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0200 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014931
The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. He acknowledged he understood that he could request discharge for the good of the Service because court-martial charges had been preferred against him under the UCMJ which authorized the imposition of a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge. His full separation packet was not available for review in this case; however, his record does contain a DD Form 214 which shows he was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019197
He understood that if his request was approved, he might be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 24 June 1977, 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. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, an undesirable discharge was considered appropriate at the time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000767
The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to a general discharge. 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. On 1 February 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request to upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009815
On 3 May 1977, the applicant was accordingly discharged. The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by a court-martial with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant's request that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded was carefully considered; however, there is insufficient evidence to support...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015632
The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. In his request for discharge, he indicated he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge against him or of a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of a discharge under other than honorable conditions. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016826
On 22 December 1977, the separation authority approved the FSM's request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. Therefore, the FSM's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant a general discharge or an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017572
Subsequent to his return, on 29 April 1977, court-martial charges were preferred against him for one specification of being AWOL from 1 December 1976 to 8 April 1977. On 13 May 1977, the applicant was accordingly discharged. The applicant was 18 years of age at the time of his enlistment and 20 years of age at the time of his reenlistment and offenses.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008525
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On the same day, the applicants unit commander recommended approval of the applicants request for discharge under the provision of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, with a UOTHC discharge. On 12 October 1977, the separation authority approved the applicants request, directed that the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade, that he be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10 and that he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020110
On 28 February 1977, 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 that he receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and be reduced the lowest enlisted grade. The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a character of service of under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003477
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. In his request for discharge, he acknowledged he understood if the discharge request were approved, he might be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged by reason of for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial with an under...