| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. G. E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member | |
| Mr. William D. Powers | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, he was young and did not understand the nature of his discharge characterization. He also contends that he felt that he was being discriminated against.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show that:
The applicant entered active duty on 3 December 1972 at the age of 17. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was assigned to Hawaii for duty.
The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) seven times under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Twice for being absent without leave (AWOL) (19 January 1977 through 28 January 1977 and 8 July 1977 through 12 July 1977), twice for failure to go to his appointed place of duty (14 October 1976 and 7 September 1977), and once each for disrespectful language toward a drill instructor (6 May 1976), disobeying a lawful order (3 May 1976), and unlawfully sticking a private (23 January 1976).
On 3 October 1977, court-martial charges were preferred for four specifications of being absent from his appointed place of duty, one specification of disrespective behavior toward a second lieutenant, and two specifications of communicating a threat, one to a sergeant and one to a first lieutenant.
On 19 October 1977, after consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 10. He acknowledged that he had been advised of and understood his rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, that he could receive an UOTHC discharge which would deprive him of many or all of his benefits as a veteran, that he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received an UOTHC discharge, and that there is no automatic upgrading or review of a less than honorable discharge. He waived his right to make a statement on his own behalf and to counsel.
On 4 November 1977, the discharge authority approved the request for discharge, dismissed the pending court-martial charges, directed that the applicant be reduced to grade of private (E-1), and directed that the applicant receive a Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.
On 9 November 1977, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He had served 1 year, 10 months and 25 days creditable service and had 15 days lost time.
The applicant requested that the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) review his characterization of service. In a unanimous vote on 14 November 1983, the ADRB held that no relief was warranted.
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.
The Manual for Courts-Martial, Table of Maximum Punishments, sets forth the maximum punishments for offenses chargeable under the UCMJ. A punitive discharge is authorized for offenses under Article 134, communicating threat.
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. There is no evidence of record that the applicant was discriminated against or treated differently from any other soldier who committed similar offenses.
2. The fact that the applicant was young at the time he entered the service does not excuse the repeated offences that ultimately resulted in his discharge.
3. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.
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. The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record and the offense for which he voluntarily requested discharge.
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 the aforementioned 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.
INDEX
| CASE ID | AR2002068927 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020912 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.70 |
| 2. | 144.9301 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064142C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 29 April 1977, 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. Accordingly, on 20 May 1977, the applicant was discharged from the Army after completing 1 year, 10 months, and 3 days of creditable military...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071160C070402
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: 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 an administrative 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707443
The Board considered the following evidence: On 1 October 1975, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for wrongfully possessing marijuana. On 11 January 1977, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1 for the good of the service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110009389
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008343
The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to a general discharge. However, his record contains and he submitted a DD Form 214 which shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial in pay grade E-1 on 10 November 1977 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, states a general discharge is a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707443C070209
On 1 October 1975, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for wrongfully possessing marijuana. On 11 January 1977, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1 for the good of the service. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074701C070403
On 29 August 1977, the applicant was separated in absentia from the USAR under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UOTHC discharge due to conduct triable by court-martial. Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a UOTHC discharge was considered appropriate. There is no indication that he was any less mature than countless other young men and women who reported for active duty, serving honorably and without incident.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073614C070403
The Board considered the following evidence: APPLICANT REQUESTS : That his discharge be upgraded. Although the discharge packet is not of record, the evidence of record shows that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011249
The applicant requests that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to no less than general, under honorable conditions. On 18 November 1977, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be issued a DD Form 794A (UOTHC Discharge Certificate). Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073176C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 11 August 1977, 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. There is no evidence to show that the charges were dropped for any reason other than to allow him to administratively separate in lieu of trial by court-martial.