| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Walter Avery | Analyst |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher | Member | |
| Mr. Bernard P. Ingold | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That he just wants to feel better about himself and do a better job taking care of his family.
In support of his request, the applicant submitted no statement, supporting documents or evidence of post service accomplishment.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 February 1976, for a period of 3 years. At the time of enlistment, he was 18 years old, had completed 11 years of school, and had an Armed Forces Qualification Test score of 54, which placed him in Mental Category III (indicating soldiers with average learning abilities). He was trained as a medical specialist and achieved the rank of private first class.
On 25 February 1977, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. His punishment was reduction to private/E-2 (suspended for 90 days), forfeiture of $25.00 per month for one month, and extra duty for seven days. He did not appeal the punishment.
On 1 August 1977, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. His punishment was extra duty for 14 days. He did not appeal the punishment.
Charges were preferred against the applicant on 18 January 1978, charging that he did on or about 1 September 1977, without authority, absent himself and did remain so absent until on or about 30 September 1977.
On 19 January 1978, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge UOTHC and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. The applicant submitted a statement on his own behalf, but do to poor copy quality, it cannot now be read.
On 13 March 1978, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request and directed that he be discharged with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
On 5 April 1978, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1. He had completed 1 year, 10 months, and 24 days of creditable active service and had 125 days of lost time.
On 24 July 1989, the Army Discharge Review Board notified the applicant that his request for an upgrade of his discharge had been denied.
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. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. 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, it is concluded:
1. The applicant has submitted no issue of error or injustice. He provided no information concerning the circumstances that led to his discharge or information or evidence of post service achievements that would help in justifying a discharge upgrade.
2. 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. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.
3. 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 or submit persuasive argument for clemency. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
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
___bpi __ ___kyf___ ____rwa _ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR200277622 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021212 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, ch 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009537
The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). On 26 April 1978, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed he be discharged in the lowest enlisted grade under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with a UOTHC discharge. Although an honorable discharge (HD) or general discharge (GD) is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056351C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. PURPOSE : To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested or to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068504C070402
The Board considered the following evidence: On 12 October 1978, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge UOTHC. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002068504SUFFIXRECONYYYYMMDDDATE BOARDED2002/06/11TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE1978/10/12DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200,chapter 10 .
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012942
The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded. The applicant's military personnel records show he enlisted and entered active duty on 13 June 1977. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010528
The applicant acknowledged he: a. was making the request of his own free will and he had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person; b. had been advised of the implications that were attached to his request and that by submitting his request he also acknowledged he was guilty of the charges against him or of a lesser included offense that also provided for the imposition of a bad conduct or a dishonorable discharge; c. did not desire further rehabilitation or desire to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001744C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's contention that he has paid for his poor judgment during his active duty service, and the supporting statements he provided, were carefully considered. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130004410
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 November 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130004410 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 21 December 1978, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he receive a discharge UOTHC. The applicant's contention that his discharge should be upgraded was carefully considered; however, it was determined there is insufficient evidence to support his request.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058062C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 18 January 1979, he was discharged, under other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071160C070402
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: 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 an administrative discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008795
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). Although an HD or a general discharge (GD) is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate.