| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr. . | Analyst |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Christopher J. Prosser | Member | |
| Mr. Harry B. Oberg | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded and that he be sent his medals and awards.
His request to receive awards will be handled administratively.
APPLICANT STATES: There was no proof that he used marijuana and none that he was a homosexual. He went AWOL (absent without leave) because he was told by his company commander that he would be imprisoned at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, for being a homosexual. He surrendered at the Naval Station, San Diego. He was held for 2 weeks. He does not understand why the Navy kept him so long. They eventually released him on his own recognizance. After he returned to the base he was again harassed by the captain and threatened with prison for being gay. Although he is not gay he thinks the Army's policy of "Don't ask, don't tell" is a good idea because it allows everyone the opportunity to serve their country.
He also states that the discharge should be upgraded because he had average conduct and efficiency ratings, and because personal problems impaired his ability to serve and due to clemency.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted and entered active duty on 28 June 1984. He completed training as a supply specialist and was stationed in Germany where he was advanced to specialist (E-4). He returned to the United States and reenlisted at Fort Bragg, North Carolina on 22 January 1987.
Notwithstanding a 30 July 1987 nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for using marijuana and 13 days AWOL, he was awarded the Good Conduct Medal (first award) on 26 September 1987.
The applicant was AWOL from 3 August 1987 to 27 January 1988. He was separated with a discharge under other than honorable conditions on 8 April 1988 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. The documentation normally associated with the discharge process is not contained in the available records. He received no assigned conduct and efficiency ratings during his entire period of service.
The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from active Duty) and his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) list his awards as the Good Conduct Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, The Overseas Service Ribbon, the Marksman Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar and the Expert Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar.
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.
The Manual for Courts Martial, Table of Maximum Punishments shows that a punitive discharge is authorized for any AWOL of more that 30 days.
On 16 January 1996 and 21 May 2002 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's requests to upgrade his 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. There is no evidence to substantiate either of the applicant's contentions, that he was harassed for being a suspected homosexual or that he did not use marijuana. Furthermore, he has offered no rationale to show that AWOL was a necessary or even reasonable response to the alleged harassment.
2. 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. The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record.
3. The applicant's overall record of service does not outweigh the offense for which he apparently requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. He has presented no convincing justification for clemency.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
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.
5. 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.
NOTE: The Army Review Board Agency, Support Division, St. Louis will be asked to issue/reissue the medal sets for the applicant's authorized awards.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__MKP __ __CJP __ __HBO__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR AR2002073642 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020829 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19820408 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, ch 10 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (NC |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | A70.00 |
| ISSUES 1. | A92.01 |
| 2. | A93.07 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070012659C080213
In his initial application to the Board, the applicant stated he had been working for the military and around the military. The applicant submitted a statement with his request for discharge, which statement mentioned only family problems. Furthermore, in his initial application to the Board, when he was under no pressure from anyone in the Army, he did not raise any of the issues (harassment, verbal insults, unjust punishments, forced to make an untrue statement) he raises in his current...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021401
On 13 February 1974, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13 (Separation for Unfitness or Unsuitability), paragraph 13-5b(5), by reason of homosexuality and directed the applicant receive a General Discharge Certificate. Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) memorandum, dated 20 September 2011, Subject: Correction of Military Records Following Repeal...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010481C070208
The separation authority approved the separation and directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 15 for homosexuality with issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. He completed 2 years and 11 months total active military service with no days of lost time. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration in 1993, when the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy came into effect;...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018941
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 3 June 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 15 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of homosexuality with a general discharge under honorable conditions. Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) memorandum, dated 20 September 2011, subject: Correction of Military Records Following Repeal of Section 654 of Title 10, U.S. Code, provides policy guidance for Service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110013942
On 14 March 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 15 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of homosexuality with the issuance of a general discharge under honorable conditions. There is no indication she petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge or concerning the narrative reason for her separation within that board's 15-year statute of limitation. Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019298
On 29 July 1983, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 with a separation program designator (SPD) code of "JRB," an Honorable Discharge Certificate, a character of service of honorable, and an RE code of 4. Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) memorandum, dated 20 September 2011, subject: Correction of Military Records Following Repeal of Section 654 of Title 10, U.S. Code, provides policy guidance for Service Discharge Review Boards...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140021535
Due to the incidents that have happened in the unit and the statements that I have read I believe that [the applicant] is a homosexual. On 23 August 1988, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendation of the administrative board and directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 15 (Homosexuality) with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) memorandum,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015461
Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) memorandum, dated 20 September 2011, subject: Correction of Military Records Following Repeal of Section 654 of Title 10, U.S. Code, provides policy guidance for Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to follow when taking action on applications from former service members discharged under DADT or prior policies. The memorandum states that, effective 20 September 2011,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017183
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. Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) memorandum, dated 20 September 2011, subject: Correction of Military Records Following Repeal of Section 654 of Title 10, U.S. Code, provides policy guidance for Service Discharge Review Boards (DRB's) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NR's) to follow when...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130004402
c. Based on his record of performance, the commander recommended that the applicant receive an honorable discharge. It also shows that requests to re-characterize the discharge to honorable and/or to change the RE code to an immediately-eligible-to-reenter category (i.e., RE code "1") should normally be granted, if the original discharge was based solely on DADT or a similar policy in place at the time and there were no aggravating factors in the record, such as misconduct. In addition,...