| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he feels his discharge was an error and injustice due to the fact that he was having family hardships, which kept him from being able to perform his military duty at that time. He indicates that he was told he would receive a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He had been waiting patiently to become a New York City Policeman; however, with his less than honorable discharge he could not. He further indicates he has always wanted to serve his country with pride as well as his city and community. To become a New York City Policeman would give him a chance to help his community like he always wanted.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
During the period 25 July to 26 October 1981, he was a member of the Army Reserve Delayed Enlistment Program.
On 27 October 1981, he enlisted in the Regular Army. He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman). He was advanced to pay grade E-2, effective 28 April 1982.
On 8 June 1982, the applicant was absent without leave (AWOL). There is no evidence that action was taken in this matter.
On 15 June 1982, he was administered nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for disobeying a lawful order on 4 June 1982. His punishment included a reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 2 months and 30 days ITU (sic).
On 26 October 1982, as part of his processing upon his return to military control from AWOL, he indicated “I went AWOL from Fort Carson because I did not like the Army and was having family problems.” The applicant’s First Sergeant denied any knowledge of any family problems he might have had.
On 26 October 1982, the unit commander preferred court-martial charges against the applicant for being absent without leave for the period 5 September to 25 October 1982.
On 26 October 1982, the applicant signed a statement that, “I do not desire a separation medical examination.”
On 27 October 1982, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He acknowledged that he could receive a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge; that he was guilty of the charges against him; that he had consulted with legal counsel; and that he had no desire to perform further military service.
On 4 November 1982, the appropriate separation authority approved his request, directed his reduction to pay grade E-1 and that a discharge UOTHC be issued.
On 18 November 1982, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, with a discharge UOTHC, under the above-cited regulation. His separation document indicates he had 11 months and 2 days of creditable service and 50 days of lost time.
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service), then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provided, in pertinent part, that a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could at any time after the charges had been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. At the time of the applicant’s separation, the regulation provided for the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. 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, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.
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 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.
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 or duress.
3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
4. The applicant's contentions of family problems have been noted; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.
5. 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.
6. 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
_CLA____ _MHM___ _JTM___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002072971 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020905 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088334C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 27 October 1982, after consulting with legal counsel and being advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, and of the possible effects of an UOTHC discharge, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068916C070402
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: 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 the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and they must indicate that they have been briefed and understand the consequences of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064698C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 25 November 1987, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for upgrade of his discharge. The applicant’s contention that his command violated his medical profile and denied his request to change his MOS is not supported by the available evidence of record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064303C070421
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120018171
Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate. The applicant's request for a discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, was proper, and shows he wished to avoid court-martial and the punitive discharge he might have received.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140004969
He states: * a UOTHC discharge seems too severe at the time it was issued based on his military service records * his first years in the military were good and his record of promotions shows he was generally a good service member * his average conduct and efficiency ratings/marks were pretty good * he did not have any problems until he was assigned to Fort Polk * his record of nonjudicial punishments (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) indicate minor offenses 3. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140009899
The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. Following consultation with legal counsel, he voluntarily requested 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. However, at the time of his discharge, there is no...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022804
The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge. He understands clearly how serious it is being AWOL, that's why he told his mother that he would turn himself in to the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID). Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a discharge UOTHC was normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008105
On 27 October 1982, his commander recommended the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service and that he be given a UOTHC discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a UOTHC discharge was normally considered appropriate. The evidence does not support his request that his discharge should be upgraded.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076254C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: APPLICANT STATES : That he completed his 3-year enlistment.