| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that her report of separation (DD Form 214) be corrected to reflect that her service during her previous two enlistments resulted in honorable discharges.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that she needs her DD Form 214 to reflect that her service during her previous two enlistments were terminated honorably, so that she may obtain her benefits. She goes on to state that she has been diagnosed with a disease that was the result of her military service and because she received a discharge under other than honorable conditions, she has been unable to obtain much needed medical benefits. She also states that because her DD Form 214 did not properly deem her service from 1980 to 1986 as honorable, she has been denied much needed benefits.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
She enlisted in Miami, Florida, on 29 December 1980 for a period of 3 years. She was discharged on 19 October 1983, for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. She reenlisted on 20 October 1983 and was discharged on 4 December 1986, for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. She again reenlisted on 5 December 1986, for a period of 5 years and a selective reenlistment bonus. She was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 8 May 1988.
On 4 September 1990, charges were preferred against the applicant for submitting a false temporary duty (TDY) order (DD Form 1610) in October 1988; for stealing approximately $5,018.00 in November 1988, property of the United States Government; for submitting a false TDY claim voucher for $5,018.00; for falsely drafting and authenticating false TDY orders along with false statements in lieu of receipts; for falsely presenting a travel voucher to an officer of the United States on or about 28 June 1989; for a false and fraudulent claim in the amount of $5,992.00 and for submitting a false claim against the government for damaged household goods in the amount of $580.00 ($290.00 each for two items).
The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records. However, her records do contain a duly constituted DD Form 214, which the applicant refused to sign. It shows that she was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 11 January 1991, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. She had served 10 years and 13 days of total active service.
In item 18 of her DD Form 214, all of her periods of service are listed in accordance with the applicable regulation.
On 12 March 2002, she applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of her discharge. She asserted to that board that she was not guilty of the offenses for which she was charged and contended that her service should not be characterized under other than honorable conditions, based on one isolated incident in over 10 years of service. The ADRB granted her a personal appearance before that board in Washington, D.C. on 4 March 2002. 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.
Army Regulation 635-5 serves as the authority for the preparation and issuance of the DD Form 214. 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. A characterization for each period is not required for honorable service.
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 charges against them or of a lesser included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and they must 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 and there are not now nor have there ever been 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 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 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. While the Board understands her desire to receive veteran’s benefits for her service prior to the enlistment in which she was discharged, the Board has no authority over the programs administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Inasmuch as her DD Form 214 was properly prepared at the time of separation, there is no basis to approve her request to further change her DD Form 214.
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
___dh___ __fe ____ __mm___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002070574 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/07/16 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1991/01/11 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/CH10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | GD OF SVC |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 689 | 144.7000/A70.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015311
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 3 September 2002, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 3-13, in lieu of trial by court-martial. Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 1-22b, provides an officer will normally receive an Under Honorable Conditions characterization of service when the officers military record is satisfactory but not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110008464
Counsel states: * the convening authority who approved the applicant's resignation was new and remote in the chain of command and did not know her * two of the five Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) panel members voted to grant an upgrade of the applicant's discharge and it is reasonable that a court-martial panel could have reviewed the same evidence and not discharged her * a more careful review by the convening authority could have rendered the same opinion * the evidence suggests her...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002822
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. He therefore requested consideration of a general discharge instead of a discharge under other than honorable conditions. On 16 May 2005, the appropriate authority approved his request for discharge and directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075358C070403
Her discharge document does not show service in Kuwait in item 18 (Remarks). The Board considered the applicant's request for correction of her DD Form 214 to show her deployment to Camp Doha, Kuwait. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing the entry "SERVICE IN KUWAIT: FROM 22 FEBRUARY 2002 TO 5 MARCH 2002" in item 18 (Remarks) on the DD Form 214 of the individual concerned.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-00997
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00997 INDEX CODE: 110.03 COUNSEL: ZIMMERMAN & LAVIN HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be reinstated in the Texas Air National Guard (TXANG) Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) program, effective 15 April 2002, with all pay that was lost (less her subsequent earnings as a civil service technician) or in the...
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080017596
Discharge Under Review Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 020709 Discharge Received: Date: 020903 Chapter: 3-13 AR: 600-8-24 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: DFS Unit/Location: U.S. Army Health Clinic, Fort McPherson, GA Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. The Ad Hoc Review Board met; and on 14 August 2002, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110013969
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The appropriate authority approved his request for discharge on 25 August 1988 and directed that he be discharged with the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against him or her or of a lesser-included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and he or she must...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010501
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 October 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100010501 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. b. Paragraph 3-7b states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The applicant contends her bad conduct discharge should be upgraded because she received multiple awards and commendations during her initial enlistment and two reenlistments; however, she exercised poor judgment during her last year of active service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040007420C070208
The applicant requests (with his original application), in effect, that his 16 April 1990 discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635- 200, chapter 10 be changed to a discharge for erroneous enlistment and that all documents related to the chapter 10 discharge be expunged from his records; that he be paid for 19.5 days of accrued leave; that he be paid basic pay for the period 1 through 15 November 1988; that "something" be done about the DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006720
NJP may be imposed to correct, educate, and reform offenders who the imposing commander determines cannot benefit from less stringent measures; to preserve a Soldiers record of service from unnecessary stigma by record of court-martial conviction; and to further military efficiency by disposing of minor offenses in a manner requiring less time and personnel than trial by court-martial: a. Paragraph 3-6 addresses the filing of an NJP and provides, in pertinent part, that a commanders...