| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller . | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member | ||
| Mr. William D. Powers | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the type of offense did not warrant the type of discharge. While in service, the applicant states, that he was not correctly diagnosed with a nervous condition. Many times after service he was treated for the nervous condition and should have been treated during service. The applicant submits with his application his Report Of Separation From Active Duty (DD Form 214), and a copy of his medical record from active duty.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 24 May 1977, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63B10 (Wheel Vehicle Mechanic). The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-3.
On 30 May 1978, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment, under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 8 to 16 May 1978. His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $90.00 pay; 14 days extra duty and a reduction to pay grade E-1 (suspended for 60 days). On
8 June 1978, the suspension of the punishment of reduction to pay grade E-1 was vacated.
On 21 December 1978, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 27 July to 19 December 1978.
On 22 December 1978, a mental and a physical examination found the applicant fit for retention. The applicant’s record does not show that he had a nervous condition.
On 27 December 1978, after consulting with legal counsel the applicant voluntarily without any coercion 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 acknowledged, that he understood the elements of the offense charged. The applicant waived further rehabilitation and was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions. He acknowledged that he understood, that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf, but decline to do so.
On 29 December 1978, the company commander, recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. The commander’s decision was based on a personal interview with the applicant. The applicant stated, that he was aware of the nature of the interview and the consequences of a discharge UOTHC; however, he desired elimination from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. The applicant further stated, that his AWOL was caused by his dislike for military life, that he could not adjust to the military way of life and that he wanted to get out of the Army with a less than honorable discharge. In view of the applicant’s conduct, his attitude toward the military and his lack of rehabilitative potential, the commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge.
On 8 January 1979, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of a Discharge Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Certificate. On 17 January 1979, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge UOTHC. He completed 1 year, 2 months and 20 days of creditable active military service and 179 days of time lost.
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 at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. A discharge UOTHC is normally 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 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, duress or that his rights were violated in any way.
3. The contentions of the applicant have been noted. However, there is no evidence in his medical records of a nervous condition; nor has the applicant submitted probative evidence or a convincing argument in support of the request.
4. The applicant chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial. Although he may now feel that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.
5. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s requests.
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
__JNS__ __DPH___ __WDP__ DENY APPLICATION
INDEX
| CASE ID | AR2002071340 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/09/12 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1979/01/17 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, chp10. . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A70.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 144.7000 | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010801C080213
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. He stated that if returned to duty he would again go AWOL. __Richard T. Dunbar___ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20070010801 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20071220 TYPE OF DISCHARGE UOTHC DATE OF DISCHARGE 19790509 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR 635-200, ch 10 DISCHARGE REASON A70.00 BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW AUTHORITY Ms. Mitrano ISSUES 1.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071369C070402
On 13 August 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge. The applicant was 21-years old at the time he went AWOL. The Board has considered how well he did in basic training and his character witness statements; nevertheless, considering the length of his AWOL these factors do not warrant granting the relief requested.
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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000661C070208
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. 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. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year statute of limitations prescribed by law.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061111C070421
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 8 June 1993, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010899C070208
Robert Rogers | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080710C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The appropriate authority approved his request on 28 February 1983 and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions. Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions while on excess leave, on 18 March 1983, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075015C070403
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he served 3 years, 11 months, and 19 days beyond his ETS date and that, upon being released from the United States Disciplinary Barracks (USDB), he should have been honorably discharged. On 30 May 1979, the unit commander recommended approval of the request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 and the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions. Accordingly, on 15 June 1979, the applicant was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010652C080213
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. __Jeffrey C. Redmann__ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20070010652 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20071213 TYPE OF DISCHARGE UOTHC DATE OF DISCHARGE 19800707 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR 635-200, ch 10 DISCHARGE REASON A70.00 BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW AUTHORITY Ms. Mitrano ISSUES 1.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050005719C070206
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's personnel records contain a DA Form 2173 (Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status) dated 3 October 1977 which indicates the applicant was hit by a car on 15 September 1977 and he was admitted to the U.S. Army Hospital at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. He had completed 2 years, 8 months, and 5 days of active military service with 261 days of lost time due to AWOL.