| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Beverly A. Young | Analyst |
| Ms. Melinda M. Darby | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That he has stayed a law abiding citizen and has learned his lesson. He feels that he has been punished a long time for one mistake. He did not submit any documents in support of his application.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 October 1979 for a period of three years. He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training and was assigned to Fort Campbell, Kentucky.
On 12 February 1981, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of assaulting a sergeant (SGT), unlawfully entering the room of a SGT, willfully disobeying a lawful order (DOLO) from a SGT, and being disrespectful in language towards a SGT. He was sentenced to reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $300.00 pay per month for 1 month and confinement at hard labor for 1 month.
The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge proceedings are not present in his records. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) indicates that he was discharged on 21 April 1981 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33b(1), for misconduct based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities and issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge. He had 1 year, 5 months and 28 days of creditable service with 22 days of lost time due to confinement.
There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14, establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged for acts or patterns of misconduct. However, the discharge authority may direct an honorable or general discharge, if such are merited by the soldier's overall record.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.
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. The Board notes that the discharge processing papers are not in the applicant’s records. However, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.
2. Records show the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of assaulting a SGT, unlawfully entering the room of a SGT, DOLO from a SGT and being disrespectful in language towards a SGT. The Board has determined that the applicant’s overall military service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel sufficient to warrant an honorable discharge. Therefore, there is no basis for upgrading his discharge to honorable.
3. 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.
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
MMD_____ RWA_____ CLG_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002072538 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020820 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19810421 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200,chapter 14-33b(1) |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Misconduct - frequent Incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | Mr. Chun |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004334C070206
The applicant’s military records are incomplete; however, the available records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 August 1979. 3. Review of the applicant’s record of service shows that he had various incidents of misconduct, 3 nonjudicial punishments, 1 court-martial and 128 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement. Records indicate that the applicant was 19 years old at the time his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062392C070421
On 4 August 1981, the applicant was notified by his commander that separation action was being initiated against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33b, for his frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. Accordingly, on 4 September 1981, the applicant was discharged after completing a total of 1 year, 10 months and 26 days of active military service. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004099943C070208
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Even if he had not been recommended for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, there appears to have been no basis for a medical discharge. Evidence of record shows the same SSN was used at the time of the applicant's enlistment and his discharge from the Army.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065559C070421
On 14 September 1981, the applicant was notified of pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. While assigned to Fort Hood, Texas, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment for being absent for one duty day. In reviewing the applicant’s record, the Board noted his record of indiscipline, to include nonjudicial punishments and a special...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012656
On 20 October 1981, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) for misconduct - frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. On 3 November 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012986
He further acknowledged that if he received a discharge certificate/character of service which was less than honorable, he could make an application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or the ABCMR for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 29 October 1981 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33b(1) by reason of misconduct, frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil/military authorities, with a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100028279
On 14 September 1981, the applicant's commander initiated action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-33, based on frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. __________x_______________ CHAIRPERSON I...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077837C070215
MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 1 April 2003 DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002077837 The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002077837SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20030401TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE19811015DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200, Chap 14DISCHARGE REASONA60.00BOARD DECISION(DENY)REVIEW AUTHORITYISSUES...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001486
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 18 August 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110001486 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 14 April 1981, the applicant's unit commander recommended his separation from the service under the provisions of paragraph 14-33b of Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities and an established pattern for shirking. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017828
He had completed 1 year and 4 months of creditable active duty. The evidence of record shows that the applicant received four NJP's, three courts-martial, and was barred to reenlistment. Accordingly, the applicant was separated from active duty for reasons other than physical disability.