| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Beverly A. Young | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Elzey J. Arledge | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by upgrading his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to a general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he wants his UOTHC discharge upgraded to a general discharge because he previously had two honorable discharges. He believes that his record is in error or unjust because of "undue stress and injustice" and he was made to be an example for others. He states that, at the time of the alleged error or injustice, he did not know that he could appeal for correction of his records. The applicant submitted two applications for the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) and an application for the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB).
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the decisional document prepared to reflect consideration by the ABCMR of Docket Number AR1999026395 on 9 November 1999.
The applicant’s contentions regarding his discharge are new arguments which will be considered by this Board.
The applicant entered active duty on 3 February 1966 for a period of three years, completed training as a stenographer and was honorably discharged on 12 February 1968 for the convenience of the Government.
He reenlisted on 13 February 1968 for a period of four years and was honorably discharged on 12 February 1972 at his expiration of term of service. On 13 February 1972, the applicant reenlisted for a period of six years.
Records show that the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial on 15 May 1974 of wrongfully possessing marijuana in the hashish form and wrongfully possessing eleven tablets of Mandrax.
On 3 January 1975, a military police investigator searched the applicant's room and found a film canister containing suspected heroin and various other film canisters containing marijuana in hashish form and pipe paraphernalia.
On 14 January 1975, the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) counselor recommended the applicant be declared a rehabilitation failure.
Charges were preferred against the applicant on 14 January 1975 for wrongfully possessing 0.39 grams, more or less, of heroin and 5 grams, more or less, of marijuana in hashish form.
On 28 January 1975, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200. The applicant did not submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 11 February 1975, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that an Undesirable Discharge Certificate be issued.
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 18 February 1975 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.
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 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. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.
2. The applicant's request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received.
3. The Board considered the applicant's statement that his UOTHC discharge should be upgraded because he previously had two honorable discharges. However, records show that the applicant received a special court-martial, was declared a rehabilitation failure by an ADAPCP counselor, and was charged with possession of heroin and marijuana in hashish form during his last period of service.
4. The Board considered the applicant's contentions that his record is in error because of "undue stress and injustice" and he was made to be an example for others. However, the applicant has not presented any evidence that the discharge process was flawed, in error or unjust. Therefore, there is no basis for upgrading the applicant's discharge.
5. The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for this Board to reverse the decision of the ABCMR in Document Number AR1999026395 on 9 November 1999. Further, the applicant's submissions and new arguments are not sufficient as a basis for this Board to upgrade the applicant's discharge.
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
JNS_____ TL______ EJA____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002069502 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | 19991109 |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020625 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19750218 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200,chapter 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | For the Good of the Service- in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | Mr. Chun |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013055
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 a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. Army policy states that although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, an UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083606C070212
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: That, on 17 February 1972, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. An Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) Case Report, dated 30 March 1982, shows the applicant consulted with legal counsel and, on 27 February 1975, requested separation under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000891
On 25 February 1982, a special court-martial convicted the applicant of wrongfully having in his possession 0.54 grams, more or less, of a habit-forming narcotic drug, heroin. Special Court-Martial Order Number 277, dated 6 November 1982, shows the sentence was affirmed. He was also convicted by a special court-martial of possessing heroin.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021312
The Soldiers who told U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) investigators that they bought drugs from him were already in trouble and were falsely accusing him so their charges would be reduced or dismissed. On 15 September 1980, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140005572
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant has provided two letters of support dated at about the time of his discharge. The applicant requests that his discharge UOTHC be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions because he was innocent of the charges.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058860C070421
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 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. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that his discharge was too harsh because other soldiers who...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022896
On 6 January 1976, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. He was separated with an undesirable discharge on 20 February 1976 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. _______ _ x _______...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110015925
On 23 August 1984, the separation authority approved his request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial, with the issuance of a UOTHC discharge. The evidence of record shows the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, to avoid a trial by court-martial. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068706C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant, as the widow of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests that her husband’s discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable. However, the Board also noted the FSM’s record of service included four nonjudicial punishments for drug and alcohol related incidents.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080019444
The applicant served in Vietnam from on or about 14 July 1969 to 2 January 1971. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, 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.