Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073966C070403
Original file (2002073966C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 26 September 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002073966

         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun Director
Ms. Stephanie Thompkins Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr. Chairperson
Mr. Raymond J. Wagner Member
Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. 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 correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)


APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: That at the time of his discharge, his lawyer advised him that if he did not take the discharge he would be sent to Fort Leavenworth for a long time. He went absence without leave (AWOL) to find his wife, who had left him and moved back to South Carolina. He was 18 years old when he joined the service and his wife wanted him to join the service so she could receive an allotment check. He learned to drink alcohol in the service and when he could not keep up with his wife's fast crowd, she went back to South Carolina. In support of his application he attributes a statement to his mother that states “Her son was scared he was going to Army prison for going AWOL, is the only reason he agreed to the dishonorable discharge. That is where the lawyer told him he would go for a long time and he was a scared kid so he went along with it. Please give him a chance and change his discharge.”

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years, in pay grade E-1, on 17 February 1984.

He completed his basic and advanced training and was awarded military occupational specialty 51N10, water treatment specialist.

He was advanced to pay grade E-2 on 17 August 1984.

On 15 September 1984, a Report for Suspension of Favorable Personnel Action was initiated against the applicant for pending Magistrate Court proceedings for driving while intoxicated on Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

On 29 October 1984, he was reported AWOL. On the same day, a Report for Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions was initiated against the applicant due to being AWOL.

On 4 November 1984, he surrendered to military control.

On 19 November 1984, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, (UCMJ), for absence from his appointed place of duty. His punishment included forfeiture of pay, 14 days extra duty and 14 days restriction.

On 25 November 1984, he was reported AWOL. On the same day, a Report for Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions was initiated against the applicant due to being AWOL.


On 5 December 1984, the applicant's mother was advised in writing of his AWOL.

On 25 December 1984, he was dropped from the rolls.

On 26 December 1984, he was charged in absentia with 1 specification of AWOL on or about 25 November 1984 and remaining so absent.

On 7 June 1985, he was apprehended by civil authorities and returned to military control.

On 12 June 1985, after consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service. He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf and acknowledged that he understood he could receive a discharge UOTHC and the possible effects of this type of discharge.

On 25 June 1985, the applicant's commander recommended that he be discharged UOTHC in accordance with the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. The commander stated that the applicant advised him that he was aware of the consequences of a discharge UOTHC. The commander also stated that the applicant acknowledged that he departed AWOL due to marital problems. The applicant also stated that he began to drink heavily which caused difficulties in his marriage and his wife left because she did not like his drinking habits. After his wife left, he wanted to reconcile their existing problems, so he went AWOL. The applicant also stated that he desired to be discharged from the service.

On 12 July 1985, the appropriate authority approved his discharge and directed a UOTHC discharge and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. It was also directed that charges against the applicant be dismissed effective the date of discharge.

He was separated on 30 July 1985, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, For the Good of the Service – In Lieu of Court-Martial. He was credited with 10 months and 27 days total net service and lost time from 29 October 1984 through 3 November 1984 and 25 November 1984 through 6 June 1985.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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. A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

Paragraph 3-7 of this regulation 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. In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge to honorable or to any other characterization. He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.

2. The applicant’s contentions that he agreed to his discharge because his lawyer advised him that he would be sent to Fort Leavenworth for a long time and that he went AWOL to find his wife have been noted by the Board. However, at the time of the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service, he stated to his commander that he went AWOL to reconcile with his wife and of his own admission, he desired and requested to be discharged from the service. There is no indication that his statements were made under coercion or duress.

3. 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.

4. While the Board is empathetic, the applicant's personal problems are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

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

_RJW____ _KYF___ _RVO___ DENY APPLICATION




                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records




INDEX

CASE ID AR2002073966
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED 20020926
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. A70
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069719C070402

    Original file (2002069719C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2013 | 20130006025

    Original file (20130006025.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    While he was there, he received his second Army Good Conduct Medal. He was there alone with his 6-year old son. His conviction, confinement, and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and his discharge appropriately characterized the misconduct for which he was convicted.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070007442C071029

    Original file (20070007442C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 3 May 1985, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The evidence of record fails to give any indication that the applicant ever sought or was denied counseling or assistance for an alcohol abuse problem.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086696C070212

    Original file (2003086696C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    He recommended approval of his request with a discharge under other than honorable conditions. However, taking into consideration that the applicant's commanders at the personnel control facility were not aware of the applicant's record of service, coupled with the applicant's stated desire to leave the Army because of personal difficulties, his discharge under other than honorable conditions was perceptible. The applicant's DD Form 214 should be corrected to show award of the Army Good...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012518

    Original file (20080012518.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides his separation document (DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) in support of his application. On 28 August 1985, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive a UOTHC discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition, and the evidence of record...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068244C070402

    Original file (2002068244C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 30 April 1985, 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. On 11 February 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009262

    Original file (20120009262.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge and after consulting with defense counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. He also indicated that he understood he could face substantial prejudice in civilian life because of his UOTHC discharge and subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge in order to avoid a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020707

    Original file (20120020707.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 10 January 1985, he consulted with counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. On 5 March 1985, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge and directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. _______ _ _X______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006387

    Original file (20080006387.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. There is no evidence of record to show the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016006

    Original file (20140016006.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 8 November 1984, the applicant was again advanced to pay grade E-4 and he was awarded the 2nd Army Good Conduct Medal. He acknowledged that if the request was accepted he could receive a UOTHC discharge. There is no evidence to support the applicant's contention concerning the helicopter crash and associated depression problems or any evidence to support the implied conclusion that those alleged circumstances warrants the requested relief.