| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Rosa M. Chandler | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That he left his unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status because of family problems.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 16 February 1978, he enlisted in the Delayed Entry Program (DEP). On 4 April 1978, the applicant was separated from the DEP and he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. Following completion of all required military training, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 64C (Military Transport Operator). The highest pay grade that he achieved was pay grade
E-2.
On 2 August 1978, the applicant was assigned permanent duty at Fort Ord, California, in MOS 64C. The applicant left his unit in an AWOL status from
7-11 February 1979, from 26 February 1979-15 June 1981 and from 23-24 June 1981.
On 24 June 1981, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 26 February 1979-15 June 1981 and from 23-24 June 1981.
On 26 June 1981, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial. He was advised that he could receive a UOTHC discharge. He authenticated a statement with his signature acknowledging that he understood the ramifications and effects of receiving a UOTHC discharge. He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 17 September 1981, the applicant's unit commander recommended that the applicant's request be approved with the issuance of a UOTHC discharge and stated that retention of the applicant would not be in the best interest of the Army. The commander cited that the bases for his recommendation were that the applicant indicated he went AWOL because he could not adapt to the military; that he believed his future was on the outside and that, if he were required to return to duty, he would leave again in an AWOL status. The unit commander's recommendation also shows that the applicant received one nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Coder of Military Justice. There is no further discussion about the NJP and it is no longer contained in the applicant's military personnel file.
On 17 September 1981, the applicant's intermediate commander recommended separation with a UOTHC discharge. On 25 September 1981, the applicant's senior intermediate commander also recommended separation with a UOTHC discharge.
On 30 September 1981, the approval authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10 and directed that he be separated with a UOTHC discharge in pay grade E-1.
The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows that he was separated on 23 October 1981 under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UOTHC discharge for conduct triable by a court-martial. He had completed 1 year, 2 months and 23 days of active military service and he had 847 days of lost time due to being AWOL.
There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge under that board's 15-year statute 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 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 was authorized, a UOTHC discharge was 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 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 applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, to avoid trial by court-martial was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.
3. The applicant has provided no evidence that his periods of AWOL were the result of family problems. At the time of his separation, the applicant's counsel attributed the applicant's AWOL to his inability to adapt to Army life. Even if the applicant did have family problems, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance with his personal problems without committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review.
4. 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___ __tbr___ __teo___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002077233 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030401 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19811023 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, Chap 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A71.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.7100 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070888C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 29 April 1981, the applicant’s unit commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request for separation with a UOTHC discharge. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002070888SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20020926TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE19810515DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200, Ch 10DISCHARGE REASONA01.33BOARD...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000661C070208
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge under that board's 15- year statute of limitations. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year statute of limitations prescribed by law.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003236
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to a general discharge. The evidence of records also shows he was charged with one specification of AWOL from 16 August through 13 November 1978.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705684C070209
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any) APPLICANT REQUESTS: The former service members (FSM) spouse requests, in effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOHC) be upgraded to honorable. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The FSMs military records show: The FSM entered the Regular Army on 4 January 1977 for a period of 3 years. On 3 January...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076813C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 25 August 1981, he was separated with a UOTHC discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. Although an honorable or a general discharge is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705684
APPLICANT REQUESTS: The former service member’s (FSM) spouse requests, in effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOHC) be upgraded to honorable. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The FSM’s military records show: On 3 January 1979 the FSM went AWOL from his unit at Fort Hood, Texas.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076143C070215
The Board considered the following evidence: The applicant's Report of Separation and Record of Service, NGB Form 22, shows he was discharged from the ARARNG (but not as a Reserve of the Army) on 28 May 1979 by reason of being ordered to involuntary active duty. Counsel stated that it was the applicant's understanding that he was discharged from military service and that he was completely unaware of being placed on active duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053868C070420
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. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140021536
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 21 February 1979, the separation authority approved his request for discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, and directed the applicant receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge with reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009604
The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD). On 3 February 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, and directed he receive an UOTHC discharge. The evidence of record shows the applicant accepted NJP for twice being absent without leave and he was charged with the commission of an offense...