| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member | ||
| Mr. Harry B. Oberg | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That her discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions.
APPLICANT STATES: That she enlisted with every good intention. However, her maturity level did not equal her ambition and consequently she made many bad decisions. She requests that her age, her personal problems (bad marriage), and her remorse be taken into consideration. Also, she was told at the time that her discharge would be upgraded six months from her separation. She provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
She was born on 26 November 1958. She enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 September 1977. She completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 91C (Clinical Specialist). She was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 5th Infantry Division, Fort Polk, LA.
On 4 June 1979, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.
On 12 June 1979, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging her with being absent without leave (AWOL) from 5 September 1978 to on or about 1 June 1979.
On 13 June 1979, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for wrongfully possessing some quantity of marijuana.
A Personnel Control Facility Interview Sheet, FDCF Form 691A, dated 13 June 1979 shows that the applicant indicated she went AWOL because she enlisted to be a medic but found herself working in the motor pool and doing other unrelated jobs which she did not want to do. She requested transfer to the hospital but it was denied. She decided in basic training that she did not like the Army. She thought it to be unfeeling and did not respect the rights of service members. She did not like being in a tactical unit. She went to live with her husband in New York City. She claimed the Army was holding her back from accomplishing her goals and wanted out.
On or about 12 June 1979, 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. She was advised of the effects of a discharge UOTHC and that she might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. She elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.
The company and battalion level commanders recommended approval of the applicant’s request and that she be given a discharge UOTHC.
Two endorsements approving the applicant’s request by the appropriate authority are filed in her records. One, undated and unsigned, directed she be furnished a General Discharge Certificate. A second, dated 2 August 1979 and signed, directed she receive a Discharge Certificate UOTHC.
On 27 August 1979, 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. She had completed 1 year, 2 months, and 20 days of creditable active service and had 269 days of lost time.
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.
The U. S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable. The Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically stated that no factors should be established which would require automatic change or denial of a change in 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. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
2. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations. She was almost 20 years old at the time she went AWOL. There is no evidence to show she had a bad marriage. The FDCF Form 691A dated 13 June 1979 indicated she lived with her husband after she went AWOL. Considering the length of her AWOL, the characterization of her discharge as UOTHC was and still is appropriate.
3. 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
__TSK__ __JTM__ __HBO___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002072053 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/07/11 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1979/09/13 |
| 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 | CY2015 | 20150001435
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). In his request for discharge, he indicated he understood that if his request for discharge was accepted, he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. The applicant's record contains no documentation that shows he submitted a request for a hardship discharge or compassionate reassignment.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004102910C070208
The evidence of record shows that on 30 July 1980, the applicant consulted with counsel and submitted a request for discharge from the service under chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board during its 15-year statute of limitations for an upgrade of her discharge. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but the separation authority may direct a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110015510
There is no evidence the applicant appealed to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. When characterization of service under other than honorable conditions is not warranted for a Soldier in entry-level status, the separation will be described as an entry-level separation. The available records show she went AWOL on 20 March 1987 and she remained absent until she surrendered to military authorities on 29 April 1987.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012796
On 4 March 1983, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and he voluntarily requested a 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. On 14 March 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and directed the issuance of an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073470C070403
The Board considered the following evidence: On 4 April 1989, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. However, the applicant's contentions are not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004925C070206
The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows that he was separated on 14 March 1989, under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with the character of service of uncharacterized. The evidence of record shows in this case he was separated under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service-in lieu of trial by court-martial with...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004104989C070208
d. The applicant's failure to timely file her request for correction of her military records should be excused because of her mental condition. On 12 February 1980, the applicant went AWOL from her unit in Germany. Army policy states that although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010856
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant was discharged on 11 June 1986 with a UOTHC discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071573C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024004
The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to general under honorable conditions. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. His record of service included over 130 days of lost time.