| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Joyce A. Wright | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Stanley Kelley | Member | |
| Mr. John P. Infante | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his UOTHC discharge was unjust and should be upgraded to honorable. In support of his application he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show he enlisted on 4 October 1977, as a light weapons infantryman. He was promoted to SGT/E-5 on 2 March 1982.
On 19 October 1982, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failure to go to his appointed place of duty. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-4, a forfeiture of pay, and extra duty.
On 11 May 1983, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for assault. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3, a forfeiture of pay, and restriction and extra duty.
The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 16 September
1984, and was found qualified for separation. He underwent a mental evaluation on 15 October 1984, which determined that he could distinguish right from wrong and that he possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative or judicial proceedings.
On 23 October 1984, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intentions to initiate action for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, drug abuse. He based his reasons on the applicant’s conspiracy to possess and distribute marijuana, wrongful possession and distribution of marijuana, and use of marijuana. The portion of the applicant’s waiver of rights pertaining to his separation is not in the available records.
On 23 October 1984, the battalion commander reviewed the applicant’s packet and concurred with the opinion of the company commander and recommended that the applicant be discharged.
On 11 November 1984, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge, reduced the applicant to the pay grade of E-1, and directed that he be issued an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge. The applicant was discharged on 16 November 1984.
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 the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor
disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter.
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 notes the applicant’s contention; however, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence to support his contention or to show that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.
2. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for that separation were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
3. 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.
4. 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
__ro___ ___sk___ ___ji_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002068921 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020718 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19841116 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635- 200, C-14-12C |
| DISCHARGE REASON | DRUGS |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 360 | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073444C070403
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 | CY2001 | 2001059884C070421
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: He was sentenced to be discharged from the service with a bad conduct discharge, reduction to E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, $2000 fine and confinement at hard labor for 8 months. Evidence of record shows that the applicant’s military career included a pattern of drug abuse.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080003317
His records do not show any significant acts of valor during his military service. This form further shows the applicant completed 2 years, 11 months, and 3 days of creditable military service. There is no indication in the applicants records that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that Boards 15 year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010825
On 22 October 1979, the applicant's commander advised the applicant he was taking action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, due to conviction by civil court. On 28 November 1979, after consulting with counsel, the applicant requested consideration of his case by an appearance before a board of officers. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, for...
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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027240
This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's 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. There is no evidence in his records that shows he was physically unfit at the time of his discharge. The applicant failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that he was medically/physically unfit at the time of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072669C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. However, they are not supported by the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084764C070212
A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. However, there are no medical records available to the Board which indicate that the applicant was scheduled for treatment for drug or alcohol abuse while in the service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03093380C070212
He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers. The applicant was discharged on 9 January 1984 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, for misconduct – drug abuse. An under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally appropriate for separation for misconduct; however, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the member's overall record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009217
When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. However, there is insufficient evidence to substantiate his contention that the electrical shock that he sustained was the cause of his acts of misconduct. The available evidence show that it was not until 2008/2009 that he alleged a personality change which is almost 24 years after his discharge from the Army.