| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deyon D. Battle | Analyst |
| Ms. Jennifer L. Prater | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Hubert O. Fry | Member | |
| Ms. Gail J. Wire | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a discharge under honorable conditions (general).
APPLICANT STATES: That the Veterans Administration Region Office (VARO) determined his discharge to be under honorable conditions and his Report of Separation (DD Form 214) should be corrected accordingly. In support of his application, he submits a copy of a letter from the VARO dated 15 February 1979.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 16 September 1976, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of
E-1. He successfully completed his training as a tank driver.
The applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) on 3 April 1978 and he remained absent until he surrendered to military authorities on 5 May 1978.
The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not on file. The DD Form 214 indicates that the applicant was discharged on 22 June 1978, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had completed 1 year, 8 months and 12 days of total active service and he had 31 days of lost time due to AWOL. He was issued a discharge under other than honorable conditions.
On 15 February 1979, the VARO notified the applicant that a determination had been made relative to the character of his discharge. The VARO found that his discharge from military service on 22 June 1978 was issued under honorable conditions and is not a bar to benefits.
There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 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.
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 Board has noted the applicant’s contentions; however, the VARO, using its own discretion, has the authority to make a determination of service for the purpose of awarding benefits. Nonetheless, this Board is not bound by the determination made by the VARO and in no way does it modify the decision previously made by the Department of the Army.
3. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was AWOL for 31 days and that he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, which normally results in the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions.
4. It appears that his discharge is properly characterized and his DD Form 214 is correct as currently reflected. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that what the Army did in his case was correct.
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
__hof ___ __gw____ ___jlp___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002070404 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/07/23 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1978/06/22 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | 689 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 708 | 144.7100 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010801C080213
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. He stated that if returned to duty he would again go AWOL. __Richard T. Dunbar___ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20070010801 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20071220 TYPE OF DISCHARGE UOTHC DATE OF DISCHARGE 19790509 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR 635-200, ch 10 DISCHARGE REASON A70.00 BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW AUTHORITY Ms. Mitrano ISSUES 1.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015247
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 16 May 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions. Since the applicants brief record of service included one nonjudicial punishment and 105 days of lost time, his record of service was not satisfactory.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069021C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070003501C071108
However, his records contained a copy of his DD Form 214 which shows that he was discharged on 3 July 1979, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011005
The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge or an entry level separation with service uncharacterized. On 26 September 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions. The applicants record of service included two nonjudicial punishments and 128 days lost time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071369C070402
On 13 August 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge. The applicant was 21-years old at the time he went AWOL. The Board has considered how well he did in basic training and his character witness statements; nevertheless, considering the length of his AWOL these factors do not warrant granting the relief requested.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052210C070420
On 18 August 1978, the applicant’s unit commander requested active duty orders under the provision of paragraph 6-3b, Army Regulation (AR) 135-91. Orders Number 199-9, dated 18 October 1978, released the applicant from his USAR assignment and ordered him to involuntary active duty for a period of 19 months and 10 days, effective 5 December 1978. Accordingly, on 28 September 1979, the applicant was discharged from the Army after completing 8 months and 19 days of creditable active service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001269C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 2 February 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 13 February 1979 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100521C070208
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 2 October 1979 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635- 200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. The applicant’s record of service included one nonjudicial punishment and 276 days of lost time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056351C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. PURPOSE : To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested or to...