| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Roger Able | Member | ||
| Ms. Paula Mokulis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his discharge should be upgraded based on his commander’s misconduct. He states that he was diagnosed as having high blood pressure and hypertension and was forced to take an Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) in temperatures over 100 degrees. He states that he suffered a heat stoke while taking the APFT that resulted in him being impaired mentally and physically, which affected his judgment and memory. He further states that he had a permanent physical profile that limited his physical training that his commander violated.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant was honorably separated for the purpose of immediate reenlistment on 16 June 1977 after completing 2 years, 10 months, and 10 days of active military service. He immediately reenlisted on 17 June 1977 for 3 years and continuously served until he was discharged UOTHC on 17 July 1985.
The applicant’s record shows that he served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 75D (Personnel Records Specialist) and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG/E-6). It also shows that during his active duty tenure he earned the following awards: Good Conduct Medal (3rd Award); Army Commendation Medal; and the National Defense Service Medal.
The applicant’s record also shows a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on the following two separate occasions: 26 January 1984, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from
19 January 1984 to 21 January 1984; and 21 September 1984, for being AWOL from 7 August 1984 to 16 September 1984.
On 8 December 1984, the applicant went AWOL again and returned to military control on 11 April 1985. He was notified on 19 April 1985, that a court-martial charge was being preferred against him for the period of AWOL. After consulting with legal counsel and being advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, he voluntarily requested to be discharged for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10,
Army Regulation 635-200.
On 8 July 1985, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation request and directed that he be separated UOTHC and reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. On 17 July 1985, the applicant was discharged accordingly, after having served a total of 10 years, 4 months, and 24 days of total active service and had 165 days of lost time due to AWOL.
On 13 August 1987, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge after determining it was proper and equitable.
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.
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 contentions of the applicant have been noted by the Board. However, they are not supported by the evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge. The Board notes that, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, he admitted guilt to the stipulated offense under the UCMJ.
3. The Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process and that the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of undistinguished service.
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
__FNE___ __RA__ __PM____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002068799 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/05/16 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | ( UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, CH 10. . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | In lieu of trial by CM |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1.144.9321 | 144.7000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074429C070403
He was honorably discharged on 26 June 1980 for the purpose of reenlisting on 27 June 1980 for 6 years. It directed that the following statement would be added to all DD Forms 214 without exception: “Member (has) (has not) completed first term of service.” Normally, a member should not be considered to have completed the first full term of active service if separation occurs prior to the end of the initial contracted period of service. That all of the Department of the Army records related...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068244C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 30 April 1985, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge UOTHC. On 11 February 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010342C070208
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Which states, in effect, that he humbly request an upgrade of his discharge because he was unable to adapt to military life and that his discharge was in the best interest of service. On 14 August 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable and it voted to deny the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070007442C071029
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 3 May 1985, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The evidence of record fails to give any indication that the applicant ever sought or was denied counseling or assistance for an alcohol abuse problem.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065511C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board notes that the applicant’s current contention that he was given an extension of leave over the phone but was charged with being AWOL anyway is different from his contention at the time that he tried to contact his unit through the services of his recruiter but was unable to do so. While the Board sympathizes with the applicant’s reasons for wanting a leave...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088472C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected by upgrading 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068507C070402
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. On 3 January 1985, the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062583C070421
The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD). There were no military medical records available to the Board for review that confirm the existence of a back problem or contain a record of treatment for this condition. An honorable or general discharge may be granted; however, an UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002708C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's record of service shows he received three Article 15s, one special court-martial, and was AWOL for 52 days during the period under review. Since there is no evidence of record which indicates the actions taken in his case were in error or unjust, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge to general under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050006118C070206
He also states he received an Article 15 and told he had a choice of doing five years at Fort Leavenworth or separating under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of court- martial, with an UOTHC discharge. The applicant's request to have his UOTHC discharge upgraded to an honorable discharge and the supporting statement he submitted were carefully considered. In this case, the evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense...