| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | ||
| Ms. Margaret V. Thompson | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That the reason he was discharged was unfair and unjust. The charges were dropped. He chose to go to jail but the military police, not him, suggested that he get out of the Army. He was a good soldier and wanted to stay in the Army and serve his country. He was not given the right to counsel and was not allowed to choose for himself what he wanted. He provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 March 1976. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 82C (Field Artillery Surveyor).
On 2 June 1976, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent without leave from 30 May to on or about 2 June 1976.
On 11 September 1976, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for being absent without leave from 7 September to on or about 14 September 1976.
On 13 June 1977, the applicant was arrested by military authorities for larceny of private property. In a sworn statement, the applicant stated that he removed a radio from another soldier’s cubicle. He did not know to whom the radio belonged because he was new in the battery. He took the radio down to a local pawnshop and pawned the radio. He did not know why he took the radio. When asked what he was doing in the other soldier’s cubicle, he stated that he was just walking down the hall and saw the radio so he decided to get it. He later found out to whom the radio belonged but he made no attempt to give it back.
On 21 June 1977, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with larceny of private property of a value of about $40.00. His commander recommended his trial by special court-martial with bad conduct discharge authority.
On 19 July 1977, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.
On 29 July 1977, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation. He was found to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.
On 7 July 1977, 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. The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge UOTHC and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. He submitted a statement in his own behalf wherein he requested he receive an honorable discharge because there was much prejudice where he came from and he knew he would not be able to get a good job without an honorable discharge.
On 8 August 1977, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request and directed he receive a discharge UOTHC.
On 11 August 1977, 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 had completed 1 year, 5 months, and 1 day of creditable active service and had 10 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 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. 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 Manual for Courts-Martial United States, 2000 edition prescribes the maximum punishment for larceny of property other than military property of a value of $100.00 or less as a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.
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. The evidence of record shows that he was advised by counsel prior to making this voluntary request. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress. There is no evidence to show that the charges were dropped for any reason other than to allow him to administratively separate in lieu of trial by court-martial. The evidence of record shows he had a prior record of misconduct. The type of discharge given 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
__RJW__ ___LE___ __MVT__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR200273176 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/08/08 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1977/08/11 |
| 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 | CY2013 | 20130011249
The applicant requests that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to no less than general, under honorable conditions. On 18 November 1977, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be issued a DD Form 794A (UOTHC Discharge Certificate). Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070005142
Item 21 (Time Lost), of his DA Form 2-1, shows that he was confined from 5 April 1976 to 13 July 1976 (100 days); was AWOL from 30 July 1976 to 8 August 1976 (10 days); was AWOL from 6 September 1976 to 16 September 1976 (11 days) and was AWOL from 2 December 1976 to 5 December 1976 (4 days). There is no evidence in the applicants records and the applicant has provided none, to show that he applied to the ADRB (Army Discharge Review Board) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070007165C080213
On 29 October 1979, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with a discharge under other than honorable conditions. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070016233
On 5 April 1977, the applicant reenlisted in the Army for 3 years, in the pay grade of E-4. There is no evidence in the available record, nor has the applicant submitted any evidence to support to his contention that he had an alcohol problem while he was in the Army and the fact that he now contends that he did is an insufficient justification for upgrading his discharge. In regard to the applicant's Request for Waiver, there is insufficient evidence to support the applicants request to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012857
The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge. The applicant's military records clearly show that he was discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009253
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Special court-martial (SPCM) Order Number 67, dated 1 August 1978, shows that on 25 May 1978 Charge I was dismissed; however, he was found guilty of Charge II (stealing about $1000 worth of property belonging to another Soldier) and Charge III (unlawfully striking Sergeant WGM on the neck and facial area with his fists). There is no documentation showing he petitioned the Army Discharge Review...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009830
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. He acknowledged that he was guilty of the charges or lesser included charges and that, if the request was accepted, he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and be furnished a UOTHC Discharge Certificate. The applicant's record prior to his last enlistment was very good as documented by his awards and the issuance of the Honorable Discharge Certification of Military Service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009295
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. However, there is no medical evidence of record that shows the FSM had any mental condition prior to his release from military confinement on 22 December 1977.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005310C070205
The appropriate authority (a major general) approved his request on 23 March 1978 and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the Army Board for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100029607
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 July 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100029607 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge. 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.