| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Kathleen A. Newman | Member | ||
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: The applicant makes no additional statement but in his Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) application he stated that things were going fine until his unit deployed to Bosnia for six months. The length of deployment was too long for his wife. When he returned from deployment, she told him she was not happy with him after 17 years of marriage. He found out she was involved with another soldier from Fort Carson, CO and he made a few threats, which he regrets. He was ordered to stay away from her and his family for two weeks. He found out his wife was going out of town with her new friend and left his 13-year old son home alone so he disobeyed that order.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was born on 1 April 1964. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 January 1996. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 19D (Cavalry Scout).
Permanent Order 324-003, Headquarters, 2d Squadron, 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment dated 19 November 1996 awarded the applicant the Army Achievement Medal (AAM).
The applicant was honorably discharged on 7 January 1998 for the purpose of immediately reenlisting on 8 January 1998.
Permanent Orders 314-01, Headquarters, 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment dated 10 November 1998 awarded the applicant the AAM. Permanent Orders 345-3, Detachment B, 4th Personnel Services Battalion, Fort Carson, CO dated 11 December 1998 awarded him the Army Good Conduct Medal. Permanent Orders 227-048, Headquarters, 2d Squadron, 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment dated 14 August 2000 awarded him the AAM.
On 9 November 2000, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for assault (striking his wife), communicating a threat (to his wife), and failure to obey an order (violating the commander’s order not to contact his wife).
On 14 November 2000, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation. He was found to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings and to be mentally responsible. He was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with disturbance of emotions and conduct (partner-relational problem) and personality disorder.
On 14 November 2000, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with three specifications of failing to obey a lawful command to have no contact with his wife or contact with his wife through a third party, one specification of being disrespectful in language towards a noncommissioned officer, one specification of communicating a threat to two noncommissioned officers and a commissioned officer, and one specification of breaking restriction.
There is evidence of record to show the applicant’s commander recommended pre-trial confinement (but none to show it was implemented). His commander stated, “…He has threatened to kill his wife in the past. He has also admitted to assaulting her. The fact that Mrs. ___ put a restraining order upon SPC ___ 13 November 2000 exacerbates his disposition even further. If SPC ___ is not confined, it is likely that he would attempt to contact and just as likely that he would attempt to harm his wife based on his threats to her.…His threats to commit further misconduct should not be taken lightly…”
On 17 November 2000, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge UOTHC and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 22 November 2000, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.
On 4 December 2000, the applicant was discharged with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had completed 4 years, 10 months, and 29 days of creditable active service and had 4 days of lost time. His Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214, item 13 does not show he was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal or any AAM.
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. A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.
On 29 May 2002, the ADRB denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his 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 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. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress. Considering the seriousness of the offenses for which the applicant was charged, the type of discharge given was and still is appropriate.
3. There is an administrative error on the applicant’s DD Form 214 as neither his AAMs nor his Army Good Conduct Medal is entered in item 13.
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.
NOTE: The Army Review Boards Agency Support Division will be directed to administratively correct the applicant’s DD Form 214 by amending it to show he was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal and three awards of the Army Achievement Medal.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
_ _INW_ _ __KAN__ __RTD__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002067575 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/06/27 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 2000/12/04 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, ch 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A70.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006749
The applicant provided sufficient evidence to show he was awarded three awards of the AAM (instead of the one award shown on his DD Form 214), two awards of the ARCOM, and one award of the Army Good Conduct Medal. There is no evidence of record to show the applicant served in Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom; therefore, there is insufficient evidence to show he met the eligibility criteria for award of the Afghanistan Campaign Medal. As a result, the Board recommends that all...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009060
The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show award of the: * Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM) * 4 Army Achievement Medals (AAM) * Humanitarian Service Medal (HSM) * North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Medal * Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM) * Kosovo Campaign Medal (KCM) * Overseas Service Ribbon (OSR) 2. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states: a. He received the NATO Medal for service in support...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018762
The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request for correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to reflect award of a second Valorous Unit Award (VUA). The applicant states the second VUA was awarded to his unit after the date of his discharge and he would like his DD Form 214 corrected to reflect all awards and decorations he earned during his honorable service. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013100
On 26 April 2006, the applicant's command initiated separation proceedings under Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense. The applicant's original DD Form 214 shows the following: a. discharge under other than honorable conditions with 5 years, 2 months, and 16 days of creditable active service and 276 days of lost time; b. separation in pay grade E-1; c....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060743C070421
On 25 July 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was awarded the AAM twice and also the Parachutist Badge. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064179C070421
If the commander’s decision remains the same, the commander will forward his or her statement, the individual’s statement, and his or her consideration for filing in the individual’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ), DA Form 201. The immediate commander’s decision to award the Army Good Conduct Medal will be based on his or her personal knowledge and of the individual’s official records for the periods of service under previous commanders during the period for which the award is to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001716
The applicant requests, in effect, that his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge (HD). The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the Army and entered active duty on 16 January 1997, and was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 95B (MP). The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) issued to the applicant at the time of his discharge on 30 January 2004 shows he was discharged under the provisions...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018197
The applicant requests that his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) be corrected by: a. removing the following six permanent orders awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM): B069-26 for 2d award, B178-51 for 3d award, B178-52 for 4th award, 339-009 for 4th award, 147-39 for 5th award, 320-01 for 6th award; and b. replacing them with the following six orders correcting or showing the correct dates of the award of the AGCM: 167-06 for the 2d award, B178-52 for the 3d award,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110002134
The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time shows in: * Item 12f (Foreign Service) the entry "0000 00 00," indicating no foreign service during his period of service * Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) the: * Army Good Conduct Medal * National Defense Service Medal * Global War on Terrorism Service Medal * Army Lapel Button * Army Service Ribbon * Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar * Item 18 (Remarks) no entry...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100249C070208
Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part for award of the Driver and Mechanic Badge. The evidence of record shows the applicant was awarded the NATO Medal for service in support of Operation Joint Forge from 23 February 1999 to 20 September 1999. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected: a. by awarding him the GCMDL for the period 18 March 1998 to 16 January 2001; b. by showing he was...