| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | ||
| Mr. William D. Barr | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: An honorable discharge instead of a discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he made a mistake but he help his unit by working extra hard to be a good soldier. Many times he worked hard to complete the missions and make the Army a better place for his fellow soldiers. He further states, that the Board should consider his past dedication and hard work in trying to reverse his mistake. The applicant did not submit any supporting documents with his application.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 14 February 1985, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13B10 (Cannon Crewmember). The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-3.
The applicant’s record indicates, that he was counseled on eleven different occasions for failure to repair, for dereliction of duty, for missing formation, for being absent without leave (AWOL) and for writing bad checks.
On 4 November 1986, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of being AWOL from 29 August to 3 November 1986. He was sentenced to a reduction to pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of $426.00 pay and to be confined for 30 days.
On 1 December 1986, the applicant was barred from reenlistment. The bar to reenlist was based on the applicant’s conviction by a summary court-martial of being AWOL.
On 24 December 1986, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, due to misconduct and that he be required to appear before a board of officers convened to determine whether he should be discharged. The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him.
On 26 February 1987, a board of officers found the applicant undesirable for military service and recommended that he be discharged from active Federal service because of misconduct with the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.
On 2 March 1987, the applicant was reported for being AWOL. He was returned to military control on 4 March 1987. There is no indication that the applicant was punished for the offense. On 23 March 1987, the applicant was again reported for being AWOL.
On 31 March 1987, the Commanding General approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. On 1 September 1987, the applicant was discharged in absentia, under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct – commission of a serious offense, with a discharge UOTHC. He had completed 1 year, 10 months and 1 day of creditable active service.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities desertion or absence without leaves. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.
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 evidence of record shows that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of service determination at the time of discharge was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.
3. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of the request.
4. Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
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
__FNE __ __ BJE _ __WDB __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002075549 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/09/10 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1987/09/01 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200,chp14 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A60.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1.144.6000 | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021878
On 10 February 1987, the applicant was notified of the proposed separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 14-12, for misconduct (commission of a serious offense) for larceny, utterance of numerous worthless checks, attempts to obtain services under false pretenses, and AWOL. On 3 March 1987, the applicant was separated with a UOTHC discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (commission of a serious...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060747C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Army Regulation 635-200 states in pertinent part that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. It is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077120C070215
On 10 March 1987 the applicant’s commanding officer notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him from the Army for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14. Paragraph 14-3 states that a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged for misconduct. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the soldier’s overall record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | AR20050014597C070206
On 1 July 1974, he was honorably discharged in the pay grade of E-4, for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. He was transferred to Germany on 9 September 1982, reenlisted on 15 August 1984 for a period of 6 years and was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 November 1984. There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082316C070215
On 5 June 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. 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 at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004103796C070208
Carol A. Kornhoff | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests, in effect, that his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to that of a general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions. On 6 February 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge under that board's 15- year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013696
He was discharged in the rank/grade of private/E-1. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, an UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate. Based on his record of being AWOL and using marijuana, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002033C070205
The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 1 February 1983. c. 3 January 1986, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge and directed he receive an UOTHC discharge; and d. 13 January 1986, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The applicant’s separation document confirms he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of misconduct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017254
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). He is now 45 years of age and needs his discharge upgraded. On 8 April 1988, the applicants commander recommended separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for a pattern of misconduct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000721C070208
f. Military medical documents, dated between September 1986 and 6 January 1988, which show he complained of chronic pain in the right foot. On 9 December 1986, the applicant was evaluated for drug dependency. The available evidence does not show the applicant ever petitioned the Court of Military Appeals for grant of review.