| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | ||
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was having trouble with his wife and he went absent without leave (AWOL). He realized what he did was wrong and he returned to Fort Knox, KY. He was interested in completing his time and continuing his career. The captain told him his options were either take what she said was a general discharge or he could stay but he would have to go to Fort Leavenworth (for confinement) for one year. He was young and that scared him, so he took the discharge. He thinks he was misled about the type of discharge he would receive. He has medical problems now and could really use his veterans benefits. He provides his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214, and one letter of support dated 11 January 2002 as supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 August 1981 for 3 years. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman). He was honorably discharged on 13 July 1984 for the purpose of immediately reenlisting on 14 July 1984 for 5 years.
On 23 July 1985, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to go to his appointed place of duty. His punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-3 (suspended), a forfeiture of $192.00 pay (suspended), 14 days restriction, and 14 days extra duty. On 26 September 1985, the suspended punishments were vacated when the applicant disobeyed a lawful command from his superior commissioned officer not to go more than 300 miles from Fort Knox, KY without a pass.
The applicant departed AWOL on 23 October 1985. He surrendered to military authorities on 14 December 1985.
On 19 December 1985, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with AWOL for the period 23 October to on or about 14 December 1985.
On 20 December 1985, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. He understood that, if his request was accepted, he could be discharged under conditions which were other than honorable and furnished an Other Than Honorable discharge certificate. He was advised of the effects of a discharge UOTHC and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 20 December 1985, the applicant was placed on excess leave pending his discharge.
On 24 December 1985, the applicant’s company commander recommended approval of his request and recommended a discharge UOTHC. On 2 January 1986, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.
On 30 January 1986, 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. He had completed a total of 4 years, 3 months, and 28 days of creditable active service and had 52 days of lost time.
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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. A discharge UOTHC 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. 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.
2. 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. There is no evidence of record to show the applicant was told he would be given a general discharge under honorable conditions. Considering the length of his AWOL, combined with his two immediately prior incidents of misconduct, the characterization of his discharge as UOTHC was appropriate.
3. The Board is cognizant of the applicant’s good post service conduct; however, that factor alone does not warrant the relief requested.
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
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR202069719 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/06/13 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1986/01/30 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, ch 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A70.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050010272
The applicant’s record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 22 February 1983. On 14 January 1986, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive an UOTHC discharge. On 14 February 1986, the applicant was discharged accordingly.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061591C070421
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. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024894
On 12 May 1989, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC and his reduction to pay grade E-1. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. He provided neither sufficient evidence nor a convincing argument to show his discharge should be upgraded, and his military records contain no evidence which would entitle him to an upgrade of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008487
There is no evidence he was returned to the training command. He was due to be released in November of 2013, after period of over 27 years. There is insufficient evidence to grant the applicant an upgrade of his UOTHC discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007189
The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). The evidence of record shows that on 26 August 1987 the applicant was charged with being AWOL from 22 September 1986 through 22 August 1987. He provided neither sufficient evidence nor a convincing argument to show his discharge should be upgraded and his military records contain no evidence which would entitle him to an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040009801C070208
On 8 March 1984, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for violating a lawful general regulation by borrowing money from trainees on two separate occasions. On 14 March 1986, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s honorable service between 1971 and 1973 is properly documented and recognized in the DD Form 214 he received for this period of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012429
The applicant states that Army Regulation (AR) 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) requires the appointment of an officer to counsel Soldiers undergoing physical disability processing and that in his case, the Army did not do so. Counsel requests reconsideration of the applicant's earlier request for correction of his UOTHC discharge to a general or an honorable discharge with a medical narrative reason for separation. Without a PEB, the applicant could...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004104
The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge (HD). When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. The applicant contends that he discussed his family problems with his First Sergeant, Company Commander, and Platoon Leader and was granted compassionate leave during this...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011910
The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show he: * entered active duty (AD) on 27 August 1986 vice 21 October 1986 * was honorably discharged on 1 August 1991 vice discharged on 7 January 1993 under other than honorable conditions * completed the Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC) 2. Following consultation with legal counsel, he requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040008273C070208
If he desired a review of his discharge, he was required to submit a request to either the Army Discharge Review Board, or the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, and the act of consideration by either board did not imply the discharge would be upgraded. There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge under that board's 15- year statute of limitation. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for...