| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Joyce A. Wright | Analyst |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Member | |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable.APPLICANT STATES: That his UOTHC discharge should be upgraded to honorable. He attended basic training, served overseas, was promoted to pay grade E-4, and received several awards. He contributed to the defense of his country and was a member of several military groups. Upon his return to the US, he was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas, where his troubles began. He was upset and went AWOL with 60 days remaining on his contract. Since his discharge, he has changed and credits the military with his success. He submits five character reference letters and a newspaper article in support of his application.EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant’s military records show he enlisted on 10 March 1981, as a combat engineer.
The applicant was punished twice under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failure to go to his appointed place of duty on two occasions. His punishments consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, and confinement at hard labor for 30 days.
He was convicted by a summary court-martial on 9 March 1984, of being AWOL from 7 December 1983 to 11 January 1984. His sentence consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, and confinement at hard labor for 30 days.
The applicant’s records show he was AWOL from 3 to 7 May 1984 and from 16 May to 4 December 1984.
Charges were preferred against the applicant on 18 December 1984, for being AWOL from 16 May to 5 December 1984.
On 18 December 1984, he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. In doing so, he acknowledged guilt of the offense charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA) if a discharge under other than honorable conditions were issued. He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 3 January 1985, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge. The applicant was discharged on 24 January 1985.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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.
The character reference letters provided by the applicant’s family members attest to his good citizenship and hard work. Additional references attests to his high values, performance, and independent thinking. A newspaper article credits the applicant with assisting an injured motorist.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and 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.
2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for that separation were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
3. The character references and newspaper article pertaining to his post service conduct is not sufficient evidence to warrant an upgrade of his UOTHC discharge.
4. The applicant’s contention that he was AWOL only during his last 60 days of service is not supported by the evidence of record. He was AWOL on three separate occasions, once for 6 months.
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
__kk____ __rw___ ___ao____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002068507 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020702 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19850124 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, CHAP 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 360 | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9706825
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9706825C070209
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any) APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: On 7 November 1967 the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States for 2 years at the age of 18. The applicant was found guilty of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050007312C070206
The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable. 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. The applicant is requesting upgrade of his discharge based on good post-service conduct and he has provided evidence of post-service achievement or good conduct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070014202
On 31 December 1985, the United States Army Court of Military Review affirmed the findings and sentence. The applicant has provided no evidence to show that his discharge was unjust at the time of his offenses. It is noted that if the applicant was found guilty of the charged offenses today, and was convicted at a trial by court-martial, the maximum sentence that may be imposed for a single violation of Article 112a, would be a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064027C070421
On 31 July 1970, the applicant was discharged with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 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: The Board is cognizant of the applicant’s Vietnam service and the fact that counseling and group sessions enabled...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070009274
The applicant's documentation showing approval of his request for discharge is unavailable for review; however, his DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged on 6 February 1970 and was furnished an undesirable discharge, characterized as UOTHC, in pay grade E-1. On 28 September 1978, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge. The evidence shows that the applicant voluntarily requested discharge, for the good of the service, under the provisions...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068593C070402
On 31 January 1983, the approval authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10 and directed that he be separated with a UOTHC discharge in pay grade E-1. The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows that he was separated in absentia on 23 February 1983 under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UOTHC discharge for the good of the service-in lieu of court-martial. On 13 August...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050015038C070206
James R. Hastie | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051394C070420
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088662C070403
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. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The Board reviewed the applicant's record of service which included two Article 15 punishments, one general court-martial conviction and 191 days lost.