| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A Omartian | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. John P. Infante | Member | ||
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he has completed restitution for his offenses since 1979. In support of his application, he submits the enclosed character references and other documents attesting to his rehabilitation.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He entered active duty on 23 January 1973 for four years. He completed basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Bliss, Texas. Upon completion of AIT, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11C (Indirect Fire Crewman), and he remained assigned to Fort Bliss for his first permanent duty station.
The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition during his tenure on active duty, and it shows that the highest rank he attained was private/E-2 (PV2). His disciplinary history includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 12 October 1973, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 9 to 12 October 1973.
On 4 December 1974, the applicant was arrested for aggravated robbery. On
8 May 1975, he was arraigned for robbery in the District Court of the Third Judicial District, Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City, Utah. He pled guilty to this offense and was ultimately convicted of the offense. On 15 October 1975, he was sentenced to 1 to 15 years of imprisonment.
On 8 March 1977, the applicant was notified that discharge proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 were initiated for his elimination from the Army by reason of his civil conviction, and that this could result in his receiving an UOTHC discharge.
On 7 April 1977, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander’s notification of elimination action. He completed his election of rights by requesting that his case be considered by a board of officers, and that he be provided counsel.
On 6 June 1977, a board of officers convened at Fort Bliss, Texas, to consider the applicant’s case. The applicant was unavailable due to his incarceration, however his counsel was present at the proceedings. The Board found that the applicant was not desirable for further service because of his civil conviction, and it recommended his discharge UOTHC for misconduct on that basis.
On 15 June 1977, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, by reason of his civil conviction, and he directed that the applicant receive an UOTHC discharge.
The separation document (DD Form 214) published upon the applicant’s discharge confirms that on 15 August 1977, he was discharged UOTHC under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, by reason of civil conviction. It also shows that on the date of his discharge, he had completed a total of 1 year,
10 months, and 7 days of creditable active military service and he had accrued 987 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.
On 21 June 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge after determining that his discharge had been proper and equitable.
Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, provided the authority for the administrative separation or retention of enlisted personnel who had committed an act and or acts of misconduct. Section III of that regulation prescribed the standards and procedures for processing cases of individuals who, during their current term of active military service, had been convicted by a civil court.
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 Board notes the applicant’s contention that his discharge should be upgraded because he has completed restitution for his offense since 1979. It also carefully considered the character references and other documents the applicant submitted in support of his request. However, it finds these factors are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was properly discharged in accordance with the applicable regulations in effect at the time. The Board finds that the discharge accurately reflects the overall quality of the applicant’s record of service. Therefore, it finds insufficient evidence to support upgrading the applicant’s discharge at this time.
3. The record also shows that the applicant’s case was considered by a board of officers at his request, he was represented by counsel, and the board after carefully considering the facts, recommended that he be discharge UOTHC, by reason of his civil conviction. Therefore, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met, and that the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.
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 the 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
__AAO__ ___JPI___ __RKS __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002077123 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/11/14 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1977/08/15 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-206 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Civil Conviction |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 360 | 144.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000667C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should commence on the date of final action by the ADRB. As a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063076C070421
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. Army Regulation 635-206, then in effect, provided, in pertinent part, that an enlisted member who was convicted by a civilian court of an offense for which the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110002283
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The separation authority could issue an honorable discharge (HD) or a GD if it were warranted based on the member's record of service. His record also includes letters from the applicant requesting discharge as a result of his civil conviction and a Congressional Inquiry Packet that confirms he sought the assistance of a Member of Congress in expediting his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016363
On 3 June 1977, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, for misconduct by reason of civil conviction, and directed that he receive an under than honorable conditions discharge. Furthermore, Army Regulation 635-206, paragraph 33 provided, in pertinent part, that members convicted by civil authorities would be considered for separation. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084226C070212
On 12 April 1976, the applicant's commander submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to conviction by civil authorities. Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, for misconduct – conviction by civil authorities. There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004978C070206
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge, characterized as under other than honorable conditions, be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to upgrade his discharge. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066923C070402
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. After review by a board of officers at Fort Knox, Kentucky, with representation by counsel on 25 August 1971, the discharge authority directed that the applicant be discharged with an undesirable discharge,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009227
The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable or general discharge. The applicant essentially states that he was arrested and convicted of first degree armed robbery in 1977 in the State of Washington, but since that time he has no criminal history. However, the applicant was not awarded a personal decoration which might have warranted a general discharge, and his record of misconduct so far outweighs his record of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010148C071029
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. After hearing all testimony and considering all the evidence presented, the board of officers found the applicant was undesirable for further retention in the military service because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities, and it recommended he be discharged based on his civil conviction and that he receive an undesirable discharge (UD), which was, in effect, an UOTHC discharge under standards...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006063
The available records do not show any significant acts of achievement or valor during his military service. On 11 April 1974, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge and a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 after completing 1 year, 9 months, and 11 days of creditable active service with 99 days of lost time. On 14 March 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request...