| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin | Member | ||
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: Applicant provides no statement in support of his request.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He initially entered the Army on 21 January 1977 and was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment on 24 July 1979. On 25 July 1979, he reenlisted for a period of 6 years. He was trained and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman), and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was specialist/ E-4 (SP4/E-4).
The applicant’s service record reflects a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on three separate occasions for being absent without leave (AWOL), for failure to go to his appointed place of duty, and for consuming intoxicating alcoholic beverages during a training exercise.
The applicant’s discharge packet is missing from his military records and there are no available medical records that show the applicant suffered from any medically disabling condition at the time of his separation. However, there is a properly constituted separation document (DD Form 214) on file. This document confirms that on 19 March 1987, he was discharged UOTHC under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service/
in lieu of trial by court-martial.
At the time of his discharge, the applicant had completed a total of 8 years,
1 month, and 3 days of creditable active military service, and he had accrued
757 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.
There is no evidence to show the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue of limitations.
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 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. 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, applicable law and regulations, and it is concluded:
1. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that his discharge UOTHC should be upgraded to an HD. However, the Board finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.
2. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the Army. However, the Board notes that the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 that contains the authority and reason for his separation. Therefore, the Board presumes government regularity in the discharge process.
3. The DD Form 214 confirms that the applicant was administratively discharged for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by court-martial. Procedurally, this would have required him to consult with legal counsel after being charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge. In addition, he would have had to voluntarily request separation after admitting guilt to the stipulated offense under the UCMJ.
4. The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Finally, the Board finds that the applicant’s characterization of service was appropriate based on his disciplinary history and his overall undistinguished record of service.
5. 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.
6. 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
__AAO__ __KWL__ __DPH__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002076157 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/09/24 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19870319 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 CH 10. . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | For the Good of the Service In Lieu of Trial By CM |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.7000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058227C070421
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue of limitations. Chapter 10 provides for members, who have committed an offense or offenses that authorize a punitive discharge, to submit a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001058227SUFFIXRECONYYYYMMDDDATE BOARDED2001/09/27TYPE OF...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084527C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004104989C070208
d. The applicant's failure to timely file her request for correction of her military records should be excused because of her mental condition. On 12 February 1980, the applicant went AWOL from her unit in Germany. Army policy states that although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061469C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064668C070421
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The separation document confirms that the applicant was discharged for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by court-martial. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001064668SUFFIXRECONYYYYMMDDDATE BOARDED2002/02/21TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE19820228DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200 Chapter 10 .
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120016026
However, the record does contain a properly-constituted DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), in lieu of trial by court martial. Although an honorable discharge (HD) or general discharge (GD) is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate. This document confirms the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000740C070205
On 8 November 1979, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations), chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant’s record is void of the separation authorities approved request of the applicant's discharge and issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge from the Army. The evidence of record shows the applicant had...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060613C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE...
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 | CY2002 | 2002079969C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 24 March 1982, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge. The separation document issued to the applicant upon his discharge confirms that he was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial after completing a total of 1 year, 9 months, and 22 days of...