Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was very young and foolish at that time in his life. He contends that his discharge has haunted him for almost 20 years, that he has heart disease and that it would be beneficial to obtain medical treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted on 15 June 1982 for a period of 3 years. He successfully completed One Station Unit Training and was transferred to Germany for duty as an armor crewman.
On 17 August 1983, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for disobeying a lawful order. His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2, extra duty and a forfeiture of pay (suspended for 6 months).
On 23 August 1983, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for breaking restriction and disobeying a lawful order. His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1 (suspended for 6 months), a forfeiture of pay (suspended for 6 months) and extra duty.
The applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) on 12 September 1983 and returned to military control on 21 September 1983. He went AWOL again on
4 October 1983 and returned to military control on 4 November 1983. Charges were preferred against the applicant on 7 November 1983. Trial by special court-martial was recommended.
On 8 November 1983, 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, chapter 10. He indicated in his request that he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate; that he may be deprived of many or all Army benefits; that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the DVA; and that he may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law. He also acknowledged that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge. Additionally, he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
The intermediate commanders recommended that the applicant’s request for discharge be approved and that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions.
On 8 December 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued a discharge under other than honorable conditions.
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 23 December 1983 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial. He had served 1 year and 5 months of total active service and had 40 days of lost time due to AWOL.
There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 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 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 under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. 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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.
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’s contention that he was young and foolish at that time in his life is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief. The Board notes that the applicant was 19 years old at the time when he executed his voluntary request for discharge.
2. The Board considered the applicant’s contention that he has heart disease and that it would be beneficial to obtain medical treatment from the DVA. However, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of obtaining medical benefits.
3. The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included two nonjudicial punishments and 40 days of lost time and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. The Board also determined that his service was not satisfactory. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge or a general discharge.
4. 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.
5. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separations were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
6. 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.
7. 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
FNE____ LE______ TL______ DENY APPLICATION
CASE ID | AR2002077508 |
SUFFIX | |
RECON | |
DATE BOARDED | 20021121 |
TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19831223 |
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 Chapter 10 |
DISCHARGE REASON | For the good of the service in lieu of court-martial |
BOARD DECISION | DENY |
REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
ISSUES 1. | 110.0200 |
2. | |
3. | |
4. | |
5. | |
6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056966C070420
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 | CY2014 | 20140008427
The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. The applicant's request for upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge has been carefully considered; however, there is insufficient evidence to support his request. _____________x____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050017303C070206
Rea Nuppenau | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Chapter 11 of this regulation, in effect at the time, states that a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
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 | CY2008 | 20080018477
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's records contain a letter, dated 15 February 1983, from the applicant's spouse's medical doctor. On 25 February 1983, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service and directed that an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate be issued and that the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade under the provisions of paragraph 8-11, Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007812
The applicant also understood that if his request for discharge was accepted, he may be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. There is no evidence in the applicant's military records, and the applicant failed to provide any evidence which shows that he suffered from bipolar disorder at any time during his military service. The applicant's record of service shows that he accepted NJP under Article 15 of...
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080008416
Applicant Name: ????? In the Trial Counsel's memorandum dated 17 September 2007, the unit commander recommended that the Chapter 10 request be approved with an under other than honorable condition discharge. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: No Change Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: None ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013873
The applicant also understood that if his request for discharge was accepted, he may be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. This document also indicates that the applicant had 53 months of total active Federal military service (TAFMS) and that his characterization of service was honorable. Most importantly, the characterization of service shown on the document provided by the applicant is clearly in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013846
Army Regulation 635-200 states that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. The SPD code "KFS" is the correct code for Soldiers separating under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200. Therefore, he received the appropriate RE code associated with his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061592C070421
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. Counsel stated that the...