| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Rosa M. Chandler | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Member | |
| Mr. Charles Gainor | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge and that the narrative reason for separation be changed to "for the convenience of the government."
APPLICANT STATES: That his ability to serve was impaired by his deprived background, his low aptitude scores, his level of education, and by his use of drugs and alcohol. In support of his request, he submits a diploma that shows he completed the course work and received his High School Diploma in May 2001, and a letter from the Veterans Service Office Southern Desert Correctional Center, Indian Springs, Nevada. He also submits a college transcript, several certificates for outstanding achievement and completion of substance abuse programs, and a letter recognizing his participation in the Adult Education Program at Southern Nevada Correctional Center.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was born on 19 September 1959. Prior to his enlistment, the applicant was convicted in civil court of trespassing, removing or breaking into a stolen vehicle, possession of a controlled substance, and reckless driving. On 22 November 1978, a moral waiver was approved and the applicant was permitted to enter the Delayed Entry Program (DEP).
The applicant was administered the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT). The test revealed that he had a GT (General Technical) score of 99. The GT score can be equated to levels of intelligence in terms of various standardized tests; a GT score of 99 placed the applicant in the normal range (90-110) on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Quotient test.
On 9 January 1979, at 19 years of age, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. Following completion of all required military training, he was assigned to a unit in Germany, with duty as a Motor Transport Operator, military occupational specialty (MOS) 64C.
Available evidence indicates that during a random drug screening, the applicant tested positive for a substance (not further identified in the record). On 16 July 1979, he was command-referred to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP). He remained in the program through 30 November 1979. There is no evidence that he completed the program; however, after being in the program for approximately 4 months and serving in Germany for a little more than 6 months, he returned to Fort Dix, New Jersey, for out-processing on 3 November 1980.
The applicant's records do not contain all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge process. However, his records do contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 that was prepared at the time of separation and signed by the applicant. The DD Form 214 shows that, on 5 November 1980, he was separated with a UOTHC discharge, due to conduct triable by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. He had completed a total of 1 year, 9 months and 27 days of active military service and he had no recorded lost time.
There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge under 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 an administrative discharge 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 was authorized, a UOTHC discharge was then 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 available records show that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, with an administrative discharge due to conduct triable by court-martial. Although, the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge process are missing, he would have been charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. He would have consulted with defense counsel and signed a statement indicating that he had been informed that he could receive a UOTHC discharge and the ramifications of receiving such a discharge. He would have voluntarily requested discharge to avoid trial by court-martial. In doing so, he would have admitted guilt to the stipulated offense(s) under the UCMJ. The Board presumes administrative regularity and the applicant has provided no information that would indicate the contrary of his characterization of service nor his narrative reason for separation.
3. There is no evidence, nor has the applicant presented any, to suggest that his separation was the result of a deprived background. Likewise, the applicant's separation cannot be attributed to his educational ability, or lack thereof. The applicant's test scores upon enlistment indicated that he was of normal intelligence. Furthermore, he successfully completed all required training courses and was awarded an MOS.
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
__inw___ __wtm___ __cg____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002070911 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021003 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19801105 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, Ch 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A01.43 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.0143 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016616
The applicant requests, in effect, upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. On 29 July 1980, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel). Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a UOTHC Discharge Certificate was normally furnished an individual who was discharged for the good of the service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007456
The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). The memorandum notified the applicant of his separation from the U.S. Army in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel). Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070888C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 29 April 1981, the applicant’s unit commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request for separation with a UOTHC discharge. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002070888SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20020926TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE19810515DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200, Ch 10DISCHARGE REASONA01.33BOARD...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089826C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Army policy states that a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but a GD or HD may be granted. The offense for which he was convicted by a summary court-martial was relatively minor in nature; however, he was offered, and refused, the opportunity to resolve the matter by NJP.
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130005104
3 On 4 June 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 9, AR 635-200, for being an alcohol and drug rehabilitation failure. On 5 July 2012, the separation authority approved the proposed action and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Army policy states that an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized depending on...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080000303
The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time of his discharge shows he was discharged for the good of the service, under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge character of service. Army Regulation 635-200 states, in pertinent part, 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. With respect...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140005361
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. A UOTHC discharge would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. Discharge actions processed under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075825C070403
His recruiter failed to inform him that if his degree was evaluated and it was determined to be worth 136 credit hours under the United States Educational System, he could enlist in pay grade E-3. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded that the applicant failed to inform his recruiter, at the time of enlistment in the Army, that he had 136 college credit hours from the University of Guadalajara.
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130014157
Presiding Officer I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case. The applicant provided documents that reflect on an unknown date, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(2), for misconduct (drug abuse). The applicant stated, in effect, he had served dutifully and faithfully as an intelligence analyst for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058194C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On the same date, at age 17, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years. The available records do not contain a statement submitted by the applicant in his own behalf.