| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyl | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That his military lawyer told him that this kind of discharge was the best option. He didn’t want to take up his time. He felt pressure all the time. They told him if he didn’t take this [discharge] he might go to prison. This all happened because of a fist-fight, which he is sorry that it happened.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records were lost or destroyed and the information herein was obtained from reconstructed personnel records.
During the period 22 March to 9 April 1985, he was in the Army Reserve Delayed Enlistment Program.
On 10 April 1985, he enlisted in the Regular Army. He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 95B (Military Policeman).
On 24 July 1986, he was administered nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for the theft of another soldier’s personal property, for disobeying a lawful order on 13 July 1986 and for disorderly conduct on 13 July 1986. His punishment included a forfeiture of $149 pay, restriction and extra duty. His appeal was denied.
On 29 September 1987, the applicant, after consulting with legal counsel, 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 (Article 90 – Assault upon a superior commissioned officer; Article 92 – Failure to obey a lawful regulation; and Article 128 – Assault); that he had consulted with legal counsel; and that he had no desire to perform further military service.
A physical examination and mental status evaluation cleared him for separation.
On 8 October 1987, the appropriate separation authority approved his request, directed his reduction to pay grade E-1 and that a UOTHC discharge be issued.
On 27 October 1987, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, with a discharge UOTHC, under the above-cited regulation. His separation document indicates he had 2 years, 6 months and 18 days of creditable service.
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. 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 contention that he was ill advised by his legal counsel at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief. The Board notes that the applicant authenticated a statement that he voluntarily made the request and that it was of his own free will and he had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person. Further, he indicated that he had been advised of the implications that are attached to this type discharge. He acknowledged that he understood the charges and was guilty of them.
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.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
_INW____ _AAO____ _TL____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002073935 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020827 |
| 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 | CY2004 | 20040008273C070208
If he desired a review of his discharge, he was required to submit a request to either the Army Discharge Review Board, or the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, and the act of consideration by either board did not imply the discharge would be upgraded. There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge under that board's 15- year statute of limitation. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060747C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Army Regulation 635-200 states in pertinent part that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. It is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070004777C071029
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052962C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The separation authority approved the request and directed reduction to the lowest enlisted grade and separation under other than honorable conditions. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003544
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged from active duty on 6 May 1987 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a UOTHC discharge. There is no evidence which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070016312
Director Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: M Chairperson M Member M Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant provides: a. After just 18 days in Germany, he deserted and returned to the United States.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004063C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. 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. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008292C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant was discharged 1 March 1988 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service with a discharge UOTHC. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year statute of limitations prescribed by law.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070011995
He had completed 3 years active duty service. On 24 June 1987, the Staff Judge Advocate, in a written review for the convening authority, summarized the evidence and trial discussion. The SPD code of JJD was the appropriate code for the applicant based upon the guidance provided in Army Regulation 635-5-1 for Soldiers separating under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 3, as a result of court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010407C071029
Donald L. Lewy | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant states he was discharged with an honorable discharge his first enlistment. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.