| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Beverly A. Young | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was interviewed by military police at Fort Hamilton in Brooklyn, New York. He was told to remain out for 30 days and that he would be transferred to another unit. He contends that he was wrongfully discharged because he was on leave from his unit at the time. He states that his First Sergeant "had it out" for him because he had reported him to the chaplain. He also states that the First Sergeant refused to take him back when he called the unit. In support of his application, he submits a copy of a Personnel Control Facility Interview Sheet (FDCF Form 691A).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant initially served in the Army National Guard from August 1981 to April 1983. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 May 1985.
Records show that he was AWOL on 28 February 1986 and was dropped from the unit rolls on 30 March 1986. He surrendered to military authorities at Fort Hamilton in Brooklyn, New York on 31 March 1986. Charges were preferred against the applicant on 2 April 1986 for this period of AWOL.
The applicant provided a copy of a Personnel Control Facility Interview Sheet, dated 2 April 1986. On this document, the applicant indicated that he was AWOL because of "marriage problems" and his "health."
On 4 April 1986, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offenses charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA) if an UOTHC discharge were issued. The applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. On 22 April 1986, the applicant's unit commander recommended approval of the request for discharge and that an UOTHC Discharge Certificate be issued.
The separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge on 12 May 1986 and directed issuance of an UOTHC Discharge Certificate.
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 30 June 1986 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had 1 year and 27 days of creditable service with 31 days of lost time due to AWOL.
On 4 April 1989, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.
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. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
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'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.
2. The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and VA benefits. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.
3. The Board considered the applicant's contentions that he was interviewed by military police at Fort Hamilton and was told to "remain out" for 30 days and that by doing so, he would be transferred to another unit.
4. The Board also considered the applicant's contention that he was wrongfully discharged and that he was on leave from his unit at the time. However, the applicant's contentions are not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record. There is no apparent evidence that the discharge process was flawed, in error or unjust. Therefore, there is no basis for upgrading the applicant's discharge to general.
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_____ JTM_____ MHM_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002073470 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020905 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19860630 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200,chapter 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | For the Good of the Service-In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | Mr. Chun |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | CY2003 | 2003088730C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He also states that the last time he appeared before a review board, one person voted to grant him an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant has also failed to show that he was denied his leave benefits while on active duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020009
The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge. The appropriate authority approved his request on 10 April 1986 and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | AR20070008893C071029
Edward E. Montgomery | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. He concludes by stating that he was very proud to be a member of the Army; that he would be very appreciative to have an upgrade of his discharge to honorable; and that he has suffered for the past 20 years for his mistake. A review of the available records fails to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011258
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests his discharge be upgraded. On 10 October 1989, the applicant was separated with a UOTHC discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002901C070205
The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded. He was transferred to Fort Dix, New Jersey, where charges were preferred against him for the AWOL charge. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003615
Since, a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 19 March 1986, shows court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for one specification of violating Article 86 of the UCMJ for AWOL for the period 1 October 1985 through 18 March 1986. Following consultation with legal counsel, he 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. 10 On 21 April...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110012977
He states: * he needs these codes changed so he can enlist in the Army * his discharge was upgraded from under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to uncharacterized * his wife was very ill with lupus at the time and she was unable to care for herself and their children 3. Army Regulation 635-200 states that individuals will be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge prior to discharge or release from active duty. The applicant's request that his RE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079164C070215
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: EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014210
b. he doesn't believe that during his discharge from the service his leadership considered his two prior honorable discharges and award of the Army Good Conduct Medal for his honorable and faithful service. He stated he was requesting an honorable discharge because he was a benefit to the Army, was a good Soldier for 5 years and 11 months prior to encountering emotional personal problems. It appears the separation authority determined the applicant's overall service during his last...