| 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 "Section 10" be removed from his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) and that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was told that he could reenlist once he settled his problems. He adds that his sergeant provoked him with racial slurs.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
Prior to the period of service under review, the applicant served honorably in the United States Naval Reserve from 10 May 1975-22 June 1976. During that period of service, he spent 5 months on active duty.
On 23 June 1976, the applicant enlisted in the Delayed Entry Program (DEP). On 4 August 1976, he was discharged from the DEP and he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 95B (Military Police). Following completion of all required military training, he was awarded MOS 95B and assigned to Korea on 25 November 1976.
On 16 June 1977, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), was imposed against the applicant for violating a lawful general regulation by purchasing 32 ounces of mayonnaise in excess of the monthly prescribed limit in April 1977. His punishment included forfeiture of $99.00 pay per month for 1 month and 7 days of extra duty.
On 9 November 1977, NJP was imposed against the applicant for being derelict in the performance of his duties on 24 October 1977 in that he willfully let another individual operate a military vehicle without a driver's license when the vehicle was dispatched to him [applicant]. His punishment included forfeiture of $75.00 pay per month for 1 month and 2 days of extra duty.
On 26 December 1977, the applicant was reassigned to Fort Devens, Massachusetts. On 11 July 1978, he received a mental status evaluation and a medical examination that determined he was qualified for separation.
The applicant's records no longer contain all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge process. An Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) Case Report, dated 29 June 1979, shows that the applicant was AWOL (absent without leave) on three separate occasions: on 26 March 1978; from 1-23 April 1978; and from 25 April-6 July 1978. Court-martial charges were preferred against him and the applicant requested separation under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial. His request for separation was approved on 18 July 1978.
The applicant's records also contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 that was prepared at the time of separation and signed by the applicant. This document shows that, on 24 July 1978, 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 2 years, 1 month, and 15 days of total active service (5 months and 1 day of this service was prior active service). He also had 97 days of lost time due to being AWOL.
On 29 June 1979, the ADRB denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
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, due to conduct triable by court-martial. Although the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge process are missing, under chapter 10 the applicant 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 in writing 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.
3. The Board found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by anyone in the applicant's chain of command. Neither is there any evidence of discrimination.
4. The US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy that provides for automatic reenlistment after an individual has been separated with a UOTHC discharge for conduct triable by court-martial. Each case is decided on its own merits when a request for an upgrade is made. Changes may be warranted only when the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.
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
__inw___ __wtm___ __cg____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002071160 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021003 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19780724 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, Ch 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A71.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.7100 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012849
The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge. He entered active duty for training (ADT) on 28 December 1975. On or about 1 December 1977, after consulting with counsel, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Separations), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074701C070403
On 29 August 1977, the applicant was separated in absentia from the USAR under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UOTHC discharge due to conduct triable by court-martial. Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a UOTHC discharge was considered appropriate. There is no indication that he was any less mature than countless other young men and women who reported for active duty, serving honorably and without incident.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018748
The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations. However, it does include a properly-constituted DD Form 214 and a letter the applicant was provided at the time of discharge that identifies the reason and character of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000908
The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. In conjunction with the applicant's enlistment, he completed a Standard Form (SF) 93 (Report of Medical History), dated 21 September 1976, wherein he stated he was in good health. On 4 April 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge and determined his discharge was both proper and equitable.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007597
The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge (HD). On 14 July 1978, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The record also shows the applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021527
It also shows he was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, due to conduct triable by court-martial and his service characterized as under other than honorable conditions. c. Paragraph 3-7b states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. _______ _ X_______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002170
The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to a general discharge. On 15 May 1978, after consulting with counsel, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Separations), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. On 9 June 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063395C070421
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 25 March 1978, the applicant’s unit commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge with a UOTHC discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086315C070212
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 2 August 1976, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017441
The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to a fully honorable discharge. The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) he was issued at the time shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of a court-martial with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.