| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a more favorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: The applicant offers no argument or evidence in support of his application.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in Cleveland, Ohio, on 15 August 1975, for a period of 3 years, training as an infantryman and assignment to Hawaii (25th Infantry Division). He completed his training at Fort Polk, Louisiana, and was transferred to Hawaii on 2 February 1976, for duty as an infantryman. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 12 October 1976.
On 5 February 1977, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2 (suspended for 30 days) and extra duty.
He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 May 1977 and on 10 August 1977, NJP was again imposed against him for the wrongful possession of marijuana. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3, a forfeiture of pay and restriction.
On 19 December 1977, NJP was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty and for disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer. His punishment consisted of restriction for 7 days (suspended for 30 days) and extra duty for 7 days. On 6 January 1978, the suspended portion of his punishment was vacated.
On 11 May 1978, he was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 30 January to 13 February 1978, of three specifications of failure to repair and of one specification of missing movement. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 60 days and reduction to the pay grade of E-1. He was transferred to the Army Retraining Brigade (USARB) at Fort Riley, Kansas, on 31 May 1978, to serve his confinement.
On 20 July 1978, NJP was imposed against him for being AWOL from the USARB from 19 July to 20 July 1978. His punishment consisted of restriction and extra duty for 10 days.
On 1 August 1978, the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, due to involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities. He cited as the basis for his recommendation, the applicant’s disciplinary record, his poor performance and attitude, and his failure to respond to numerous attempts at rehabilitation.
After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 4 August 1978, NJP was imposed against him for overstaying his pass privileges (violation of a lawful order). His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.
The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 8 August 1978 and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions.
Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 10 August 1978, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, due to his involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities. He had served 2 years, 9 months and 23 days of total active service and had 63 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
There is no indication in the available records which shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and procedures for separating personnel for misconduct. Specific categories include minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and/or military authorities, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. Additionally, there was not then, nor is there now, any provisions for an automatic upgrade of such a 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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
3. The applicant has offered no argument or evidence to show that his discharge was in error or unjust and the Board finds no evidence in the available records that is sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge when compared to his otherwise undistinguished record of service.
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
__tbr____ ___rvo __ __dh____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002072151 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/11/07 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1978/08/10 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/CH14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | MISCONDUCT |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 626 | 144.6000/A60.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606005C070209
On 18 January 1978, the applicants commander officially recommended that the applicant be discharged under paragraph 13-5, Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature; He indicated that the applicants conduct and efficiency were unsatisfactory; that the applicant was sent to the USARB for the purpose of receiving correctional training and treatment necessary to return him to duty as a well-trained soldier with improved attitude and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064332C070421
On the same date, the Cadre Review Board determined that the applicant should be separated under the On 6 October 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. Army policy states that a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a GD under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066379C070402
On 6 November 1978, the separation authority approved the board of officers recommendation and directed that the applicant be discharged from the service for misconduct due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with a general discharge. In accordance with a recommendation from a board of officers, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct. The Board reviewed the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077240C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 2 May 1973, the commander at the USARB requested that the applicant be processed for separation under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200. The USARB was established in 1968 as the U.S. Army Correctional Training Facility (CTF).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052333C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 20 April 1979, the applicant was notified that a board of officers would convene on 2 May 1979 to determine whether he should be discharged due to misconduct under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026504
The applicant requests his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions. On 26 June 1978, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of misconduct - frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities with his service characterized as under other than honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014299
This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. He further contends that he should be issued a DD Form 215 which shows that he served in the Persian Gulf War. There is no evidence in his military records, and the applicant provided no evidence which shows he qualified for any campaign...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017361
The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 26 May 1977, he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001066027C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The available records do not contain any evidence that indicates he was ever coerced and he has provided no evidence to the contrary. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001066027SUFFIXRECONYYYYMMDDDATE BOARDED20020521TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE19800627DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200 DISCHARGE REASONA60.00BOARD...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069956C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 26 November 1973, the applicant submitted an appeal to the punishment of the Article 15 proceedings, dated 10 October 1973. In reviewing the applicant’s record, the Board noted his record of indiscipline, to include nonjudicial punishments and a special court-martial.