| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Antoinette Farley | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Sherri V. Ward | Board Member | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Board Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was young and made mistakes. He adds that he was under a lot of stress due to a skin disease (Psoriasis), which caused him to have pain and itching. He states that he was depressed and had some psychological problems due to the stress. In support of his claim he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty), and a unidentified medical summary.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 25 October 1978, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. He completed his military training in military occupational specialty (MOS)11B00 (Infantryman). On 7 February 1979, he was assigned to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, for duty.
On 12 October 1979, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 4 to 18 September 1979. His sentence included reduction to the pay grade of E-1, forfeiture of $279.00 pay and confinement to hard labor for 30 days, in US Army Retraining Brigade, Fort Riley, Kansas.
On 20 November 1979, he received his first nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failure to obey a lawful order on
17 November 1979. His punishments included restriction and extra duty for
7 days.
On 5 December 1979, he received his second NJP for failure to obey a lawful order on 30 November 1979. His punishment included forfeiture of $100.00 pay and restriction for 20 days.
On the same day the applicant’s command notified him of its intent to separate him under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct - frequent incidents of a discreditable nature. He consulted with counsel, acknowledged receipt of the notice of the proposed separation action, and waived his rights to a hearing. He indicated he understood that he could receive a UOTHC discharge and the impact of such a characterization on his military and veterans benefits. He chose not to submit a statement in his own behalf and was medically cleared for separation after a physical examination.
On 13 December 1979, the separation authority directed that the applicant be separated with a UOTHC discharge certificate.
On 14 December 1979, the applicant was separated with a UOTHC discharge for misconduct - frequent incidents of a discreditable nature. He had 1 year and
12 days of creditable service and 38 days of lost time due to being AWOL. The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-3.
On 20 October 1981, 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 14, in effect at the time of the applicants service, established policy and prescribed the procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories included minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and extensive periods of AWOL. At the time of the separation action other categories of misconduct included frequent incidents of discreditable nature with civil or military authorities and failure to pay just debts. Action was to be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impractical or unlikely to succeed. A UOTHC discharge was normally considered appropriate, but a general or an honorable discharge could be awarded.
Army Regulation 635-200 also 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 type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. Based on the evidence, which shows that
he did not appeal the two NJPs, the summary court-martial and in the absence of any medical evidence which shows he had an unfitting condition that rendered him unfit to remain on active duty the discharge was proper. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
2. The applicant's contention of youthful immaturity is noted; however, he had demonstrated a capacity for honorable service by completion of training and almost 2 years of service without an offense of record.
3. The medical evidence of record indicates that the applicant was medically fit for retention at the time of his separation. He has submitted no probative medical evidence to the contrary.
4. 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 the 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.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__JNS __ ____SVW ___MHM_ DENY APPLICATION
INDEX
| CASE ID | AR1999029405 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002.11.19 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | MISCONDUC-UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1979 12 14 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR .635-200 CH14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A67.50 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | DIRECTOR |
| ISSUES 1. | A144.0133 |
| 2. | A71.00 |
| 3. | A126.00 |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090022C070212
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. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under 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 | CY2007 | 20070000705
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 Regulation 635-5-1, in effect at that time, prescribed the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated reasons. The regulation shows that the separation program...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084991C070212
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. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 27 July 1979, the approval authority, a major general, approved the applicant's discharge under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33 and recommended that he be furnished an Under Other...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065131C070421
A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged for acts or patterns of misconduct. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned received a general discharge at the time of his separation from active duty on 5 November 1982.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006095
On an unknown date, while at the U. S. Army Retraining Brigade, Fort Riley, KS, action was initiated to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. On 17 July 1981, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, frequent involvement in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004099943C070208
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Even if he had not been recommended for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, there appears to have been no basis for a medical discharge. Evidence of record shows the same SSN was used at the time of the applicant's enlistment and his discharge from the Army.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002083104C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On the same date, the approval authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be separated for misconduct with a UOTHC discharge. On 20 October 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070476C070402
APPLICANT STATES : That the reason he was given a discharge under other than honorable conditions was so that it could be upgraded 6 months after his discharge. On 11 June 1979, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, due to his involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities. The applicant has failed to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070017348
The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge, characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant states, in effect, that he received an UOTHC discharge for misconduct. The applicant's contentions and additional statement were considered; however, they do not support or provide a basis to upgrade his UOTHC discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110009551
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 October 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110009551 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). Counsel requests that the Board take into consideration the fact the applicant completed his initial period of obligated service.