| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Ms. Linda M. Barker | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general discharge
APPLICANT STATES: He went to Mexico on a four-day weekend with another instructor. He went to a bar in a little town in Mexico and woke up the next day in a Mexican jail. When he argued about his incarceration, he was also charged with contempt of court and spent the next 160 days in jail. The instructor he had gone to Mexico with left him and went back to Fort Knox, Kentucky, where they were both stationed. When he was released from jail, he hitchhiked to his sister’s house, stopping along the way to earn some money. When he arrived at his sister’s house, he called his duty station, told them what had happened to him, and asked for transportation back to his unit. He was picked up by FBI agents and taken to a county jail, where the military police took custody of him and transported him back to his installation. He was then discharged. Since that time he has been very active in his church and has served on the local Habitat for Humanity board of directors. Furthermore, he desires to be a police officer in the community in which he now lives and upgrading his discharge to general under honorable conditions would help him in attaining that goal.
In support of his request, the applicant submits statements from his state’s veterans service officer, two mayors, a chief of police, a sheriff, and a pastor. In these statements the applicant’s honesty, leadership, reliability and work ethic are praised. The officials making these statements say that the applicant would make a fine addition to their police department, and support his request to have his discharge upgraded.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
That he enlisted in the Regular Army for three years in pay grade E-1 on 30 November 1971 and reenlisted on 14 June 1974.
On 9 May 1977 the applicant, then a sergeant, was reported Absent Without Leave (AWOL). He was returned to military control on 15 December 1977.
The applicant’s discharge packet is not contained in his military records. However, on 24 January 1978 he was discharged in pay grade E-1 with a characterization of service of UOTHC, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10. He had a total of 5 years, 6 months and 19 days of creditable service and 216 days of lost time.
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 is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. If the applicant’s story is true, the time to have presented it would have been at a court-martial. His defense counsel would have been able to request that the fellow instructor be called as a defense witness, and the Mexican authorities could have been asked to confirm his story.
2. The fact that the applicant chose not to risk trial by court-martial can only be construed as the admission of guilt that a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial is.
3. In addition, it is hard for the Board to accept that a fellow instructor, a man who was close enough to the applicant to accompany him on a four-day weekend, wouldn’t have at least reported what had occurred to the applicant.
4. As for the applicant’s post-service conduct, while it is evident that the applicant has become a model citizen, this is not, in and of itself, sufficient grounds to upgrade an UOTHC discharge which was based on 216 days of lost time.
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:
___rjw_____ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ____bje__ ____lmb_ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002075467 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020408 |
| 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. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
6. He was awarded a Certificate of Achievement for being selected as the soldier of the month in November (year unknown); a certificate showing that he had completed the requirements (ran 50 miles) for the 50 Mile Club in May 1972; a certificate showing that he had completed the requirements (ran 100 miles) for the 100 Mile Club in August 1972; a Certificate of Achievement for “Outstanding Performance of Duty” in May 1973; another Certificate of Achievement for “Excellent job performance and Dedication to Duty” for the period January 1972 to July 1973; a Certificate of Graduation from a Noncommissioned Officer Leadership Course in June 1974; and a certificate certifying that he completed the tank commander course in August 1974.
7. He was also given a letter of appreciation from his commander in November 1976 which states “Your enthusiasm and hard work has increased the
effectiveness of the first platoon’s combat readiness. As gunner you have excelled both during on and off cycle gunnery. Your concern for your fellow soldiers and their welfare has been an example for us all. Your knowledge of the equipment and the techniques of its use is enviable. You also practice only the best maintenance procedure.”
8. He was also given a letter of commendation in February 1977 which cites the applicant for his selection as the Most Improved Graduate of the Instructor Training Course. In that commendation the applicant’s battalion commander says “Your superior achievement, which was based on your academic performance, professionalism and devotion to duty, has resulted in a highly enviable record which acknowledges your overall potential as an instructor.” All of the applicant’s Enlisted Evaluation Reports depicted superior performance of duties.
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500471
The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. As of this time, the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011342
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states he was absent without leave (AWOL) because his father was ill in a Mexican jail. On 2 December 1992, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026038
The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to change his: * date of birth (DOB) from 22 November 1949 to 22 November 1948 * place of birth (POB) from Los Angeles, CA to Mexico City, Mexico * citizenship from United States to Mexico 2. The applicant provides his U.S. The evidence of record shows his DOB, POB, and citizenship reflected on his DD Form 214 are consistent with every document in his available service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014739
In the DFAS advisory opinion, the DFAS opined that the Texas Default Judgment was insufficient to establish the applicant as an eligible SBP beneficiary because the existence of a court order declaring that she is the FSM's lawful spouse does not overcome the fact that the FSM declined SBP coverage upon his retirement and affirmatively elected SBP coverage for an invalid spouse during an open SBP enrollment season. Given that a Declaratory Judgment was made by a court of competent...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9510316C070209
He states that the date and place of birth on his DD Form 214 is incorrect. His DD Form 214 currently shows that he was born in Las Cruces, New Mexico on 27 June 1950. The applicant has provided a certified translated copy of his Mexican birth certificate showing his date and place of birth as 27 June 1947 in Mexico City, Mexico.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021529
The applicant requests that the records of her husband, a former service member (FSM), be corrected by upgrading his general discharge (GD) to an honorable discharge (HD). He stated he had not forced the victim into C____'s car or committed any assault upon her. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldiers overall record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085296C070212
The applicant states, the presumption or regularity that might normally permit you to assume that the service acted correctly in characterizing his service as less than honorable, does not apply to his case, because of the following reasons: That his military record shows he was absent without leave (AWOL) when his AWOL status is solely due to his wife condition of being critical ill. That he claims that his wife was close to death. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010982
His brothers died within 5 to 10 years after their time in the service. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. f. He further acknowledged he understood that satisfactory completion of such alternate service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010868
The applicant requests that his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) be corrected to reflect his award of the Air Assault Badge, completion of the Basic Leadership Course and Air Assault Course, and adding his Certificate of Achievement and Certificate for the 50 Mile Club. The applicant states that his DD Form 214 does not reflect his award of the Air Assault Badge, completion of the Basic Leadership Course and Air Assault Course or his Certificate of Achievement and...
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...