| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Ms. Jennifer L. Prater | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he truly feels he was a good soldier during his duty, that he was very young and did not understand what was happening and that he made a mistake with his military career. He contends that he served his country with total dedication for 4 years and 9 months and should be allowed to collect benefits. He also contends that had he been treated fairly by his commander that he would have retired from the Army, that he had a lot of personal and family problems and that he made a terrible mistake when he decided to go absent without leave (AWOL).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted on 27 January 1976 for a period of 3 years. He served as an indirect fire crewman and was honorably discharged on 21 November 1977 for immediate reenlistment. He reenlisted on 22 November 1977 for a period of
6 years.
On 3 January 1978, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for failing to go to his appointed place of duty (two specifications). His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3 (suspended for 60 days) and extra duty.
On 4 May 1979, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being disrespectful in deportment, disobeying a lawful order, being disrespectful in language and communicating a threat to injure a superior noncommissioned officer. His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3 (suspended until 3 July 1979) and a forfeiture of pay (suspended until 3 July 1979).
The applicant’s records show that he was AWOL for 1 day on 6 March 1978; that he was confined by civil authorities from 23 March 1978 to 27 March 1978 and from 28 June 1978 to 29 June 1978; and that he was AWOL from 9 February 1980 to 4 May 1980; for a total of 93 days lost time.
The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not contained in the available records; however, his records show that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 25 June 1980 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. He had served 4 years, 2 months and 5 days of total active service with 93 days of lost time.
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 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. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.
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 considered the applicant’s contentions. However, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that 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.
2. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation appear to be appropriate.
3. The Board reviewed the available records which shows that the applicant’s record of service included two nonjudicial punishments and 93 days of lost time and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge.
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
JLP____ BJE_____ TL______ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002069820 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020521 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19800625 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 Chapter 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | For the good of the service |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0200 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016874
In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charges against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a discharge under other honorable conditions. The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time of his discharge shows he was discharged for the good of the service with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions. Although an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018476
However, on 11 March 1980, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separation - Enlisted Personnel). The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows that on 27 March 1980 he was discharged with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33b(1), by reason of misconduct - frequent...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007022
In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charges against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a discharge under other honorable conditions. The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time of his discharge shows that he was discharged for the good of the service with an Under Conditions Other Than Honorable character of service. Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014931
The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. He acknowledged he understood that he could request discharge for the good of the Service because court-martial charges had been preferred against him under the UCMJ which authorized the imposition of a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge. His full separation packet was not available for review in this case; however, his record does contain a DD Form 214 which shows he was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006327
On 1 September 1982, the commander initiated action to separate the applicant for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14. The applicant was discharged accordingly. Additionally, paragraph 14-39 states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally appropriate for a member who is discharged for acts and patterns of misconduct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001066027C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The available records do not contain any evidence that indicates he was ever coerced and he has provided no evidence to the contrary. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001066027SUFFIXRECONYYYYMMDDDATE BOARDED20020521TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE19800627DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200 DISCHARGE REASONA60.00BOARD...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074306C070403
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. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that at the time of his discharge, he was experiencing marital problems and not given counseling, but instead was unjustly discharged. Based on the evidence, which shows that he did not appeal the numerous NJPs he received over a period of 23 months and the absence of any indicator showing that he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017778
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. He was credited with completing 4 months and 26 days of active service and time lost from 13 November 1979 through 20 January 1980, 17 through 21 May 1980, and 23 May through 14 July 1980.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018541
The applicant requests a medical discharge. On 13 June 1979, the applicant consulted with counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10. On 27 June 1979, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001211C070206
Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 25 January 1980, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against them...