| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr. | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That her discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that she was an outstanding soldier who did not commit a crime. She goes on to state that she never received the benefit of counsel from any representative of the Army to discuss her situation at the time and that she has never been arrested or even received a parking ticket. She would like to serve her country again and needs her discharge upgraded in order to do so.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
She enlisted in Syracuse, New York, on 26 October 1988 for a period of 4 years and training as a food service specialist. She successfully completed her training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, and was transferred to Fort Irwin, California, on 22 March 1989. She was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 26 December 1990.
On 18 March 1991, charges were preferred against the applicant for conspring with another soldier to break-in and steal currency from the dining facility, for unlawfully entering the dining facility with intent to commit larceny, larceny of $1,100.00 and the wrongful receipt of stolen money ($100.00).
On 19 March 1991, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In her request she indicated that she was making the request of her own free will, without coercion from anyone and that she was aware of the implications attached to her request. She admitted guilt to the offenses for which she was charged or of lesser included offenses which were punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. She also acknowledged that she understood that she could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that she might be deprived of all benefits as a result of such a discharge. She further elected to submit a statement in her own behalf whereas she contended that she had been a good soldier, that she had made restitution for the funds she took, that at the time she did not think her involvement was all that serious and that she desired to be discharged on 1 May 1991, because at the time she was 8½ months pregnant and could not travel.
On 1 May 1991, the appropriate authority (a brigadier general) approved her request and directed that she be discharged under other than honorable conditions.
Accordingly, she was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 8 May 1991, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. She had served 2 years, 6 months and 13 days of total active service.
On 17 April 1992, she applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) requesting that her discharge be upgraded. She contended at that time that her discharge was based on personal feelings instead of facts and that two other cooks had committed the larceny. She contended that one other cook was involved and nothing happened to that soldier, even though the other two cooks were court-martialed. She also contended that she was an excellent soldier and as such deserved at least a general discharge. After reviewing the available evidence, the ADRB voted unanimously to deny her application on 17 February 1995.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of the 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 charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the offenses for which they have been charged or to lesser included offenses punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. They must also indicate that they have been briefed and understand the consequences of such a request, as well as the discharge they might receive. 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.
2. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.
3. After being afforded the opportunity to assert her innocence before a trial by court-martial, she voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a felony conviction on her records. In doing so, she admitted guilt to the charges against her. While she may now believe that she made the wrong choice, she should not be allowed to change her mind at this late date, especially considering the seriousness of the charges against her.
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
___js ___ ___eja___ ___tl____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002070234 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/06/25 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1991/05/08 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/CH10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | GD OF SVC |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 144.7000 | 689/A70.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010749
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 14 August 2009, the ADRB denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of her discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070574C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. After reviewing all of the evidence and testimony submitted by the applicant, as well as the evidence of record, the ADRB voted unanimously to deny her request. It provides, in pertinent part, that soldiers who are honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment, in which a DD Form 214 was not issued, will have all periods listed in item 18 of that form.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007122
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. On 29 April 1980 the appropriate authority (a lieutenant general) approved his request for discharge and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060007407C070205
The applicant requests that the undesirable discharge of her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM), be upgraded to honorable. She also states that the FSM’s brother was just a cook and got his discharge changed and he did not see what the FSM saw in Vietnam. Chapter 10 of the 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 charges have been...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014536
The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of a court-martial with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019265
There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate 11. Records show the applicant was charged with a serious offense.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040006848C070208
On 28 September 1990, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service, directed that the applicant be reduced to private/pay grade E-1, and that she be discharged under other than honorable conditions. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709574
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. 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...
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060011619
Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that while serving in Afghanistan she was given her options regarding her discharge. Current ENL Service: 3 Yrs, 10 Mos, 3 Days ????? It is also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011877
The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request for an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions to fully honorable through his Member of Congress. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by a court-martial with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions. However, his discharge was based on being AWOL and he voluntarily...