| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. G. E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Member | |
| Mr. Conrad V. Meyer | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the date of discharge be changed from 19 December 2001 to 21 September 2000.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, he signed out on 21 September 2000 and was told that everyone could rejoin with a 2-year wait and the 21st was the date that would be on the discharge. He submits a copy of the Request and Authority For Leave, (DA Form 31) to support his contention.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant was honorably discharged from the Army National Guard on 26 October 1999 and enlisted in the Regular Army.
He was reported absent without leave (AWOL) on 10 January 2000 and dropped from the roles as a deserter effective 9 February 2000. The applicant was apprehended by civilian authorities and returned to military control on 3 September 2000.
Court-martial charges were preferred for his 237 days AWOL. The applicant was afforded a physical examination and was found qualified for separation.
On 21 September 2000, after consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and options, the applicant admitted that he was guilty of the offense, or lesser-included offense, that could result in a punitive discharge. He submitted a formal request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 10. He acknowledged he had been advised of and understood his rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, that he could receive an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge which would deprive him of many or all of his benefits as a veteran, that he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received an UOTHC discharge, and that there is no automatic upgrading or review.
Also on 21 September 2000, the applicant submitted a DA Form 31 requesting to be placed in an excess leave status pending finalization of his request for discharge.
The next entry in the applicant's record is a 16 November 2001 memorandum forwarding the applicant's request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial to the discharge authority.
On 29 November 2001, the discharge authority approved the applicant's request and directed that the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade (E-1) and receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The applicant was discharged on 19 December 2001.
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. While an honorable or general discharge may be 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, and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The DA Form 31, submitted by the applicant shows that he was placed in an excess leave status as of 21 September 2000, at his own request. He was not discharged on that date. While there is no explanation for the protracted time involved in the finalization of his request for discharge, he was still subject to military control until his request was finalized with his discharge on 19 December 2001. There is no evidence to substantiate his contention of what he was told and no error or injustice in the delay.
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, in conformance with applicable regulations, and his service was appropriately characterized by his record, which is devoid of redeeming service.
3. 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.
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.
| CASE ID | AR2002070440 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021210 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 100.02 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000233C070206
LaVerne M. Douglas | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 5 December 2001 the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050010952
The applicant’s record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 21 May 1999. In his request for discharge, he indicated that he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge(s) against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. By regulation, the RE-4 code assigned the applicant was the proper code to assign members separating under the provisions of chapter...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003037C070208
Jonathon K. Rost | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082349C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061830C070421
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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In view of the circumstances in this case, Board concludes the UOTHC characterization of service and RE-4 code assigned the applicant upon his discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089944C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: He was given an RE code of 4 and a separation code of KFS (voluntary discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-20, chapter 10).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076357C070215
The DD Form 214 shows that, on 9 January 2002, he was separated with a under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 and assigned an RE code of RE-4. Those individuals discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, with a UOTHC discharge, in lieu of trial by court-martial, are assigned RE-4 codes and are disqualified from further service. Carl W. S....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002228C070206
Carmen Duncan | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 19 December 2003, the ADRB considered the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge. The applicant's request to have his UOTHC upgraded and the supporting documents he submitted were carefully considered.
ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070002322
Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See applicant's attached DD Form 293 and letter of support. 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. It is also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076078C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 11 January 2001, 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. The documents submitted by the applicant with her application date back to 1997 and go through the period of her discharge.