| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Ms. Joann Langston | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Margaret V. Thompson | Member | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: That he does not believe he deserved the under other than honorable conditions discharge and contends that he was not responsible for his "wife's actions." He states he was not aware, at the time, that his wife was writing checks with insufficient funds and believes that he "received the short end of the stick." He states that he is now trying to improve his life and "obtain a job that [he] can call a career." The applicant submits no evidence in support of his request.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He entered active duty on 20 September 1978 at the age of 19, with 12 years of formal education and a general technical score of 100. He successfully completed training and in December 1978 he was assigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma as an ammunition handler.
In July 1979 he was convicted by a summary court-martial of being absent without leave between 15 June 1979 and 10 July 1979. In April 1980 he was punished under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for breaking restriction. In July 1980 he was punished under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for several counts of failing to be at his appointed place of duty.
On 6 August 1980 the applicant was barred from reenlisting by his unit commander. His commander cited the applicant's summary court-martial conviction, two records of non-judicial punishment, and one record of insufficient funds, which was "made good." The commander also noted the applicant was often absent from his place of duty, that he was a malingerer and shirked his duties.
On 15 August 1980 he was convicted by a summary court-martial for breaking restrictions. In June 1981 he was punished under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent without leave between 1 and 3 June 1981.
In July 1981 the applicant's unit commander initiated action to administratively separate the applicant from active duty due to acts or patterns of misconduct. The commander cited the applicant's two summary court-martial convictions, three records of nonjudicial punishment, numerous counseling statements, and
his local bar to reenlistment as the basis for the recommendation. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation and requested that he be allowed to present his case to a board of officers. In October 1981 the applicant appeared before a board of officers to determine if he should be discharged from the service for misconduct. During the hearing, the applicant made note that he was having financial problems but did not attribute those problems to his spouse writing checks with insufficient funds. The board concluded that the applicant was "undesirable for further retention in the military service because of misconduct" and recommended that he be discharged.
The board's recommendation was approved and on 11 January 1981 the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33b(1) for frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. At the time of the applicant's separation, he had approximately 38 months of active Federal service.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33b(1), in effect at the time, provided for the administrative separation of soldiers involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. An under other than honorable conditions 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. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request. His contention that he was separated solely because his spouse wrote checks with insufficient funds is without foundation. The Board notes that the applicant's separation was based primarily on his records of non-judicial punishment, his court-martial convictions, and his numerous counseling statements.
2. 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.
3. The applicant's contentions that he needs his discharge upgraded in order to seek employment does not outweigh the seriousness of his conduct while in the military and does not provide an adequate basis upon which the Board would grant relief.
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
___JL___ __MVT __ __RTD __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002075374 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021017 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | CY2005 | 20050004334C070206
The applicant’s military records are incomplete; however, the available records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 August 1979. 3. Review of the applicant’s record of service shows that he had various incidents of misconduct, 3 nonjudicial punishments, 1 court-martial and 128 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement. Records indicate that the applicant was 19 years old at the time his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060007426C070205
Laverne Douglas | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Chapter 11 of this regulation, in effect at the time, states that a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial. The applicant’s record of service included, in addition to the special court-martial that resulted in his bad conduct discharge, four nonjudicial punishments, one summary...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080134C070215
The record contains no evidence that he was ever punished for this offense. On 28 January 1987, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for clemency The available records contains no medical evidence and the applicant has provided no evidence that demonstrates he suffers from an illness or an injury that was either incurred in, or aggravated as a result of his military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019023
The applicant requests his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge. On 3 August 1981, the applicant's company commander requested that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Separations), paragraph 14-33, for misconduct due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004042C070205
He was sentenced to perform 45 days of extra duty, to be restricted for 45 days, and to forfeit $311 pay per month for 1 month. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Evidence of record shows the applicant had three nonjudicial punishments, one summary court-martial conviction, and one special court-martial conviction prior to being sent to the Retraining Brigade.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000849
In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charges against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a discharge under other honorable conditions. On 9 November 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service in accordance with chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 and directed he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020340
On 5 January 1981, the applicants company commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Separation), chapter 14, for misconduct, frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, stated a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. He provided no evidence or argument to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071577C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He departed Germany on 21 July 1978, en route to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, with a report date of 24 August 1978. He failed to report as ordered and was reported as AWOL from 24 August 1978, until he was returned to military control on 7 September and charges were preferred against him for the absent without leave (AWOL) offense.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009061
On 9 January 1980, the company commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action to effect his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Separations), chapter 14 (Misconduct), paragraph 14-33b(1), based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. On 29 January 1980, the battalion commander provided the separation authority in the applicant's case with a summary of the...