| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Jennifer L. Prater | Member | |
| Ms. Mae L. Bullock | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a discharge that will afford him care and benefits by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that it has been 20 years since his discharge and he believes that he should be entitled to care at the VA for a service connected disability he received while in the service and for which he was treated (deafness in right ear).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted on 10 February 1982, for a period of 4 years and training as an electrician. He was transferred to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, to undergo his training.
On 22 April 1982, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for urinating on another soldier’s bunk. His punishment consisted of forfeiture of pay and correctional custody for 4 days (suspended for 30 days).
He completed his training and was transferred to Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, on 21 June 1982. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-2 on 10 August 1982.
On 15 October 1982, he was convicted by a special court-martial of two specifications of aggravated assault. He was sentenced to be reduced to the pay grade of E-1 and 2 months of confinement at hard labor. He was transferred to the Army Retraining Brigade at Fort Riley, Kansas, to serve his confinement. He was advised upon his arrival that successful completion of the Retraining Program would provide him an opportunity for return to duty or to be discharged under honorable conditions. On 10 November 1982, the convening authority suspended that portion of his sentence pertaining to confinement at hard labor for a period of 3 months, unless sooner vacated.
The facts and circumstances surrounding his administrative discharge are not present in the available records. However, his records do contain a duly constituted report of separation (DD Form 214), which shows that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 24 February 1983, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct – pattern of misconduct. He had served 1 year, 1 month and 15 days of total active service.
There is no indication 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 Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 established the policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for various types of misconduct that included frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. It provided that action would be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally and still is considered appropriate.
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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.
3. The applicant was sent to the Army Retraining Brigade, a unit that was designed to rehabilitate soldiers during a sentence of confinement with the hopes of returning soldiers back to duty as productive members and afford them an opportunity to serve out the remainder of their service honorably. It appears that the applicant chose not to take advantage of the opportunity afforded to him at the time.
4. Although the Board has no jurisdiction over benefits administered by the VA, the inability to receive such benefits is not a sufficient basis in itself to warrant an upgrade of his discharge, especially when compared to his otherwise 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
__mb ___ ___mkp__ __jlp____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002076359 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/01/14 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1983/02/24 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/CH14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | MISCONDUCT |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 626 | 144.6000/A60.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081293C070215
On 17 January 1983, the appropriate authority waived further rehabilitative requirements and directed that the applicant be separated with a UOTHC discharge. He had completed 1 year, 8 months and 12 days of active military service. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057242C070420
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The record of trial was forwarded to the United States Army Court of Military Review for appellate review. No pay records were available for review.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080002008
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from active duty. Evidence of record shows that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions. The applicants record of service included one summary court-martial conviction, 3 nonjudicial punishments, and 51 days of lost time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088662C070403
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. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The Board reviewed the applicant's record of service which included two Article 15 punishments, one general court-martial conviction and 191 days lost.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705674C070209
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: On 12 March 1969 he was inducted into the Army of the United States for a period of 2 years. On 25 June 1981 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade to his discharge and found that the discharge process was proper in all respects. On 11 March 1982 the Army Board for Correction of Military Records denied a request from the applicant for a discharge upgrade without a hearing.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705674
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 25 June 1981 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade to his discharge and found that the discharge process was proper in all respects. On 11 March 1982 the Army Board for Correction of Military Records denied a request from the applicant for a discharge upgrade without a hearing.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058199C070420
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071033C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 1 February 1983 and on 24 March 1983, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer. However, pursuant to his plea agreement, the convening authority approved only so much of the sentence of 45 days confinement at hard labor and a forfeiture of pay.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016139
On 8 February 1983, the applicants commander recommended separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for a pattern of misconduct involving both civil and military authorities. Accordingly, on 17 February 1983, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005929
The company commander also advised the applicant he may receive a General or Honorable Discharge Certificate as a result of the action. The applicants DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 17 June 1983 with a general under honorable conditions discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-2a, based on unsatisfactory performance. The evidence of record shows that upon release from confinement the applicant was afforded the opportunity for retraining to prepare...