| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Rosa M. Chandler | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. James E. Anderholm | Member | |
| Ms. Charmane Collins | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That it has been almost 20 years since he made the error for which he was separated from the Army and be believes that he has paid for the small infraction. He is a truck driver and he lives a clean life with his wife and 2-year-old daughter. In 1989, when he appeared before the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), he was told not enough time had passed and that he should try again at a later date.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
Prior to the period of service under review the applicant served honorably in the Regular Army (RA) from 20 April 1976-22 October 1979 and from 23 October 1979-25 July 1982. He was issued a DD Form 214 at the time of separation on 22 October 1979.
On 26 July 1982, he reenlisted in the RA for 3 years, the overseas reenlistment option, Europe, his previous military occupational specialty (MOS) 75D and specialist E-5. On 15 September 1982, he was assigned to Germany.
On 25 May 1983, a soldier who was a police informant introduced the applicant to an undercover member of the Military Police Drug Suppression Team and announced he was interested in buying drugs. On the same date, at Building 1706, Flak Kaserne, Stuttgart, Germany, the applicant sold the undercover military police investigator (MPI) a $20.00 piece of marijuana in the hashish form. After an exchange of money for the drugs, the informant and the undercover MPI left the area.
On 17 June 1983, the military police apprehended the applicant at his unit for selling drugs on 25 May 1983. The applicant was informed of his rights. The military police obtained consent from him for the search of his off post apartment located in Ludwigsburg, Germany. The military police, after coordinating with the German police, searched the applicant's apartment and found two smoking devices and a foil-wrapped packet of hashish in a jacket. A cutting knife with residue on the blade was also found in the apartment.
A laboratory analysis revealed that the marijuana in the hashish form purchased/seized from the applicant on 25 May and on 17 June 1983 equaled a weight of 3.20 grams.
Charges were preferred for the above offenses, and on 1 August 1983, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial. He authenticated a statement with his signature acknowledging that he understood the ramifications and effects of receiving a UOTHC discharge. He also admitted he was guilty of the above offenses and that he had no further desire to serve in the military or for rehabilitation.
On 4 August 1983, the applicant's unit commander recommended approval of the applicant's request and on 5 August 1983, the applicant's intermediate commander recommended approval of his request. On 12 August 1983, 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.
The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows that he was separated on 22 August 1983 under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UOTHC discharge for the good of the service-in lieu of court-martial. He had completed 3 years and 10 months of active military service on the enlistment under review and he completed 3 years, 6 months and 3 days on his prior enlistments. He had no recorded lost time.
On 20 July 1984, as a result of a records review, the ADRB denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. On 8 August 1991, the applicant personally appeared before the ADRB and requested an upgrade of his discharge. On 31 October 1991, the ADRB denied his request.
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 was authorized, a UOTHC discharge was considered appropriate.
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 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.
2. The applicant voluntarily requested an administrative separation under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 to avoid trial by court court-martial. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.
3. The Board considered the applicant's entire record of service and was convinced that both the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were appropriate considering the facts surrounding his separation.
4. The Board concluded that the applicant's infraction of the law was serious because he sold drugs.
5. Although, the Board commends the applicant for his accomplishments since being separated from active duty, these accomplishments alone do not provide the Board a basis upon which to grant relief
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
__fne___ __jea___ __cc____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002074334 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021203 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19830823 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, Chap 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A60.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.6000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9307635
The Military Justice Act of 1983 (Public Law 98-209), provides, in pertinent part, that military correction boards may not disturb the finality of a conviction by court-martial 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: The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002767
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. He was 20 years of age at the time of his assignment to Germany and he was 21 years of age at time of his drug offenses. Given the seriousness of the offenses for which he was convicted, his record was not considered sufficiently meritorious to warrant clemency in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005754
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his UOTHC (under other than honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD). Paragraph 3-7c(7) specifically addresses issuance of an UOTHC for discharges issued under the provisions of Chapter 10 of this regulation; and c. Chapter 10, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073444C070403
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 | CY2002 | 2002080710C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The appropriate authority approved his request on 28 February 1983 and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions. Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions while on excess leave, on 18 March 1983, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03093380C070212
He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers. The applicant was discharged on 9 January 1984 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, for misconduct – drug abuse. An under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally appropriate for separation for misconduct; however, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the member's overall record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070012869
This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. This form shows that the applicant had completed 1 year, 6 months, and 29 days of creditable military service. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for upgrade of his discharge within its...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083606C070212
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: That, on 17 February 1972, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. An Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) Case Report, dated 30 March 1982, shows the applicant consulted with legal counsel and, on 27 February 1975, requested separation under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006947
The orders show the general court-martial convening authority approved the sentence and directed that, except for the bad conduct discharge, the sentence be executed. The records of the FBI are under the jurisdiction of that agency and the Board does not have the authority to direct that they correct those records. While the applicant is correct that the findings of the drug charges should also include the final disposition of the charges on the FBI RAP sheet, the Board does not have the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013120
The applicant provides copies of: * three personal references * two employer references * a Georgia Work Ready Certificate * 21 pages from his military personnel records jacket * a police record check from St. Mary's Police Department, St. Mary's, GA, indicating no record * 12 forms requesting drug screening tests * seven drug screening test results showing he tested negative for drugs CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. On an unknown date, a new action by a new convening authority found the...