| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III | Member | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions.
APPLICANT STATES: That, while his military record was not spotless, it was not sufficiently bad that it warranted a discharge UOTHC. The sole reason for his discharge was his being in civilian confinement. Not to excuse his failure to obey the laws, but his mistake was supposedly rectified when he served those months (in confinement). It is unjust that now he is ostracized and cannot even receive medical benefits. He provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 March 1977. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 75B (Unit Clerk).
On 18 October 1978, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to go to his appointed place of duty and for disobeying a lawful order to appear in Class A uniform for an inspection. His punishment was a forfeiture of $75.00 pay for one month and 7 days confinement in the Correctional Custody Facility, both suspended for 90 days. He appealed the punishment. His appeal was denied. On 13 November 1978, the suspension of the punishment of the forfeiture was vacated.
A Report of Medical Examination, SF 88, dated 22 February 1979 shows the applicant completed an Expeditious Discharge Program separation physical on this date. He was found qualified for separation.
The applicant's Personnel Qualification Record, DA Form 2-1, item 27 contains the entry, "SM was apprehended and confined at Pierce County 790327. SM was released 790509 pending trial." Item 21 contains an entry showing he returned to civil confinement on 17 May 1979.
The applicant's discharge packet is not available. His Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214, is not available. A Certification of Military Service, NA Form 13038, shows he was discharged on 19 March 1980 with a discharge UOTHC.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for misconduct. That regulation provides, in pertinent part, for the elimination of enlisted personnel for misconduct when they are initially
convicted by civil authorities, or action taken against them which is tantamount to a finding of guilty, if a punitive discharge would be authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial, 1984, as amended, or the sentence by civil authorities includes confinement of 6 months or more, without regard to suspension or probation.
Army Regulation 635-200 states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’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 clearly inappropriate. Where there have been infractions of discipline, the extent thereof should be considered, as well as the seriousness of the offense(s). Characterization may be based on conduct in the civilian community; the burden is on the soldier to demonstrate that such conduct did not adversely affect his or her service. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. It is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
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 and, 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.
2. The Board notes that the applicant's record was not spotless. It appears he was, in fact, being processed for discharge under the Expeditious Discharge Program at the time he was placed in civil confinement.
3. Characterization of service may be based on conduct in the civilian community. The applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating that the conduct which resulted in his civil conviction did not adversely affect his service or that his service was not appropriately characterized.
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
__EJA__ __TBR___ ___KAH__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002075522 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/09/17 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1980/03/19 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, ch 14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A61.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003769C070206
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. There is no indication in the record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within the 15- year statute of limitations of that board. Additionally, paragraph 14-39 states that an under other than honorable discharge certificate is normally appropriate for a member who is discharged for acts and patterns of misconduct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120012908
On 21 November 1979, the unit commander recommended the applicant's appearance before a board of officers convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph14-33b(1), for the purpose of determining whether he should be discharged before the expiration of his term of service. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. Army Regulation 635-200,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006377
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. His record then shows the following: * absent without leave (AWOL) from Fort Jackson during the period 17 October 1978 through 27 November 1978 * returned to military control (RMC) at Fort Meade, MD on 28 November 1978 * transferred to the U.S. Army Personnel Control Facility (PCF), Fort Dix, NJ on 4 December 1978 * AWOL during the period 4 December 1978 through 17 March 1979 * RMC at Fort Dix on 18 March 1979 * AWOL during the period 5...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017755
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. He was discharged on 12 November 1980 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a UOTHC discharge. His service record does not indicate he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016896
On 25 February 1980, the applicant's commander informed him he was initiating separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program). The applicant requests to be paid for about 80 days of leave, which he asserts he accrued while on active duty and should have been paid on separation. Regarding the accrued leave for which the applicant could be paid, neither the applicant's record nor...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004617
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Chapter 10 of that regulation provides 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. Although an HD or GD is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011246
The two periods of AWOL and the NJP's noted in the unit commander's comments are not recorded elsewhere in official record. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, states that a general discharge (GD) is a separation under honorable conditions issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not so meritorious as to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012201
The applicant's military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-1, on 31 January 1977. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The evidence also shows that after his civilian confinement the applicant was notified by his company commander of his intention to separate him from the Army, and that if discharged, he could receive a discharge under other...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006887
Accordingly, on 28 April 1980, the applicant was discharged. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued confirms he was discharged for unsuitability-apathy, defective attitude or inability to expend effort constructively in accordance with chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200, with an Under Honorable Conditions (General) Discharge. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024862
On 4 March 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14-33b(1), and directed the issuance of a UOTHC discharge. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15 year statute of limitations. It states that a UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.