| 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 his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: That the reason he was given a discharge under other than honorable conditions was so that it could be upgraded 6 months after his discharge. He contends that he was promised that if he accepted the discharge, it would be upgraded after 6 months, so that he would be eligible for benefits and he desires to have what was promised to him.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on 20 September 1977, for a period of 3 years and training as an improved hawk launcher and mechanical systems repairman. He completed his training and was transferred to Fort Bliss, Texas, on 10 August 1978. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 20 September 1978.
On 27 October 1978, the applicant was driving while intoxicated and was involved in an incident in which the military police engaged in a pursuit of the applicant on Fort Bliss, after he had ran a stop sign. He avoided the police for approximately 2 miles until a military policeman stood in the road at the gate with a pistol to stop him. The applicant refused to take the intoxilyzer test and was arrested. He was released to his first sergeant the following day. The record is silent as to any punishment imposed.
On 6 December 1978, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2, a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.
On 7 June 1979, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 4 June to 6 June 1979. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.
On 11 June 1979, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, due to his involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities. He cited as the basis for his recommendation, the applicant’s repeated failure to respond to numerous counseling sessions, his disciplinary record, and at least 16 incidents of failure to repair and poor appearance.
After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his rights and elected to submit a statement in his own behalf. He indicated that he did not believe that
his overall conduct warranted a bad discharge. He also acknowledged that he understood the implications attached to a discharge under other than honorable conditions and understood that he would be ineligible for most or all benefits administered under State and Federal laws.
The appropriate authority (a brigadier general) approved the recommendation on 6 July 1979 and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions.
Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 17 July 1979, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct involving frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities. He had served 1 year, 9 months and 26 days of total active service and had 2 days of lost time due to AWOL.
There is no indication in the available records which shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board 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 14 establishes policy and procedures for separating personnel for misconduct. Specific categories include minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and/or military authorities, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. Additionally, there was not then, nor is there now, any provisions for an automatic upgrade of such a discharge.
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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
3. The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded. Additionally, there is no evidence to show that he was informed that his discharge would be upgraded within 6 months of his discharge.
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
___js ___ ___eja___ ___tl____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002070476 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/06/25 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1979/07/17 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/CH14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | MISCONDUCT |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 626 | 144.6000/A60.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084991C070212
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. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 27 July 1979, the approval authority, a major general, approved the applicant's discharge under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33 and recommended that he be furnished an Under Other...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022809
On 9 August 1979, the discharge authority approved the separation recommendation and directed that the applicant be issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge. b. Paragraph 3-7b prescribes that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The applicant states he waived his discharge appeal rights for the promise of a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070001176
When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. The applicants record of service included numerous counseling statements, four nonjudicial punishments, and 14 days of lost time. ____Sherri Ward_______ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20070001176 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20070621 TYPE OF DISCHARGE UOTHC DATE OF DISCHARGE 19790320 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR 635-200 DISCHARGE REASON Misconduct BOARD...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074303C070403
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: On 20 October 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002083104C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On the same date, the approval authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be separated for misconduct with a UOTHC discharge. On 20 October 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
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 | CY2004 | 2004099943C070208
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Even if he had not been recommended for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, there appears to have been no basis for a medical discharge. Evidence of record shows the same SSN was used at the time of the applicant's enlistment and his discharge from the Army.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052333C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 20 April 1979, the applicant was notified that a board of officers would convene on 2 May 1979 to determine whether he should be discharged due to misconduct under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025740
25 May 1979 - the applicant was notified of the company commander's intent to recommend his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, due to misconduct; b. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The evidence of record shows the applicant had four Article 15's and he was separated with an under other than...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024766
He departed Germany on 30 November 1978 to serve his sentence to confinement in the States. His unit commander initiated action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-33b(1), for misconduct, due to frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under...