| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That “[t]he social security office told me to contac[t] you all, and get it changed because I am Disabled now.”
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
During the period 28 March to 9 July 1976, he was on active duty for training as a member of the Oklahoma Army National Guard (OKARNG).
On 4 January 1977, he enlisted in the Regular Army. He was advanced to pay grade E-3 effective 1 July 1977.
During the period 7 March to 12 April 1978, he was absent without leave (AWOL).
On 13 April 1978, he surrendered to military authorities at Fort Ord, California.
On 14 April 1978, a physical examination cleared him for separation.
The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not contained in the available records. However, his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) does show that he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
On 8 May 1978, he was discharged UOTHC under the above cited regulation. His DD Form 214 indicates he had 1 year, 6 months and 10 days of creditable service and 37 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 under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member'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 inappropriate.
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 chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial. Although he may now feel that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.
2. The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.
3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
4. 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.
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
_TBR____ _RVO___ _DPH___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002075600 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021107 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052209C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Army policy states that although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004788C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The evidence shows that the applicant's discharge characterized as UOTHC was upgraded to general, under honorable conditions, on 14 August 1980. However, he is now requesting that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071340C070402
The Board considered the following evidence: On 17 January 1979, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge UOTHC. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsCASE IDAR2002071340SUFFIXRECONYYYYMMDDDATE BOARDED2002/09/12TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE1979/01/17DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200, chp10.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709410
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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. PURPOSE : To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071160C070402
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: 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 an administrative discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068222C070402
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. It also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally UOTHC and that the applicant was aware of that before requesting discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068504C070402
The Board considered the following evidence: On 12 October 1978, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge UOTHC. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002068504SUFFIXRECONYYYYMMDDDATE BOARDED2002/06/11TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE1978/10/12DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200,chapter 10 .
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010801C080213
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. He stated that if returned to duty he would again go AWOL. __Richard T. Dunbar___ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20070010801 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20071220 TYPE OF DISCHARGE UOTHC DATE OF DISCHARGE 19790509 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR 635-200, ch 10 DISCHARGE REASON A70.00 BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW AUTHORITY Ms. Mitrano ISSUES 1.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065660C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: He states that the evidence of him trying to get a hardship discharge should be in his files.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077622C070215
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...