| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That during his service, he was bullied and disrespected. He indicates he was told he was undesirable. He will never be anyone. He was told to give up the uniform, he was no longer needed in the Army. The personnel degraded him. It should be in the best interest to see that he gets his just treatment, because he now has a family, is a law abiding citizen and believes in his country.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's available military records show:
During the period 25 January to 9 June 1980, he was a member of the Army Reserve Delayed Enlistment Program.
On 10 June 1980, he enlisted in the Regular Army for training of choice and an enlistment bonus of $2,500.00. He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13B (Cannon Crewman). He was advanced to pay grade E-2, effective 1 November 1980.
On 19 November 1080, he was administered nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent without leave (AWOL) for the period 10 to 13 November 1980. His punishment included a reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of $250.00 pay per month for 2 months and confinement in the correctional custody facility for 30 days.
On 31 December 1980, he was convicted by a Summary Court-Martial of disobeying a lawful order on 13 December 1980. His sentence included a forfeiture of $334.00 and confinement at hard labor for 30 days.
On 5 March 1981, the applicant indicated that he did not desire a separation medical examination.
On 5 March 1981, a Mental Status Evaluation cleared the applicant for separation.
He was discharged UOTHC on 17 March 1981 under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, based on misconduct – an established pattern of shirking. His records show he had 8 months and 12 days of creditable service and 63 days of lost time.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.
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. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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.
2. His contentions have been noted; however, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
3. 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.
4. 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____ __mmh___ __jtm___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002073969 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020805 |
| 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 | CY2001 | 2001056671C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 8 August 1980 he was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas and approximately six months later was convicted by a summary court-martial of being absent from duty for 16 days. The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, on 6 March 1981 and directed that the applicant be discharged under other...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063479C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 21 March 1985, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064332C070421
On the same date, the Cadre Review Board determined that the applicant should be separated under the On 6 October 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. Army policy states that a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a GD under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062392C070421
On 4 August 1981, the applicant was notified by his commander that separation action was being initiated against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33b, for his frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. Accordingly, on 4 September 1981, the applicant was discharged after completing a total of 1 year, 10 months and 26 days of active military service. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085874C070212
COUNSEL CONTENDS : In essence, just as the applicant has stated that the applicant left his unit in an AWOL status due to family problems associated with his father's illness. On 27 April 1981, the approval authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10 and directed that he be separated with a UOTHC discharge in pay grade E-1. On 10 June 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057603C070420
This rule is on the effect of the alcohol on the member's conduct, as well as the physical effect on his body. 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. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the applicant was given a general discharge from the Army on 23 June 1981, under the provisions of Army Regulation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040005386C070208
On 6 January 1982, the approval authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 and directed that he be separated with a UOTHC discharge in pay grade E-1. The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows that, on 23 February 1982, the applicant was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UOTHC discharge, due to conduct triable by court-martial. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050016922C070206
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge, characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), be upgraded to honorable. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056343C070420
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: Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001056343SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20010830TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE19820311DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200, CHAPTER 10 DISCHARGE REASONA70.00BOARD DECISION(DENY)REVIEW AUTHORITYISSUES 1.144.70002.3.4.5.6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060776C070421
On 11 August 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant submitted an application to this Board requesting an upgrade of his discharge on 4 February 1989. The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence has been submitted.