| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin | Member | ||
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his UOTHC discharge was inappropriate because he was having family problems at the time.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 14 April 1999, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years. He successfully completed One Station Unit Training (OSUT) at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 13B (Field Artillery), and assigned to Fort Hood, Texas, for his first permanent duty station.
The applicant’s record confirms that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private/E-2 (PV2). There are no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition recorded in his military record. However, the record does contain a disciplinary history that includes two separate periods of being absent without leave (AWOL), and his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
On 23 April 2001, the applicant’s unit commander notified him that separation action was being initiated against him under the provisions of chapter 14,
Army Regulation 635-200, for the commission of a serious offense. The unit commander stated that the specific reason for taking the action was that the applicant was AWOL on two separate occasions from 27 November to
3 December 2000 and 21 February to 14 March 2001. The unit commander also advised the applicant that he was recommending an UOTHC discharge.
The applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects, and the rights available to him. Subsequent to this counseling, the applicant completed his election of rights by waiving his right to an administrative separation board, his right to personal appearance before an administrative separation board, and electing not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 2 April 2002, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge UOTHC, and on 11 April 2002, he was discharged accordingly. The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant on the date of his separation confirms that he had completed a total of 2 years, 6 months, and 1 day of creditable active military service and had accrued a total of 27 days of time lost due to AWOL. This document also confirms that the only award the applicant received during his active duty tenure was the Army Service Ribbon.
On 21 August 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to this discharge after determining that his discharge had been proper and equitable.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.
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 family problems he was experiencing at the time of his discharge contributed to his misconduct and therefore, his receiving an UOTHC discharge was inappropriate. However, the Board finds this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s discharge was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation and the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.
3. In view of the applicant’s undistinguished record of service and his documented misconduct, the Board concludes that his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service and it finally concludes that relief is not warranted in this case.
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 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__ __KWL__ __DPH__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002077989 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/09/24 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 2002/04/11 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Misconduct |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010104C070208
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 September 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20040010104 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. When a Soldier is convicted by civil authorities, the regulation mandates consideration for discharge. His conviction by civil authorities obligated military authorities to consider the applicant for discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062416C070421
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The Board finds no evidence of record that shows that the applicant’s disciplinary history was alcohol related and he has failed to provide independent evidence to the contrary. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001062416SUFFIXRECONYYYYMMDDDATE BOARDED2002/03/07TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE19801217DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200, paragraph 14-33b.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070001C070402
The applicant’s military records show that on 17 May 1978, he entered the Regular Army for 3 years and that he continuously served on active duty for 3 years and 2 days, until being honorably separated for the purpose of immediate reenlistment on 18 May 1981. On 2 January 1985, the separation authority approved the separation action and directed that the applicant receive an UOTHC discharge for a pattern of misconduct and the commission of a serious offense under the provisions of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077123C070215
On 6 June 1977, a board of officers convened at Fort Bliss, Texas, to consider the applicant’s case. 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. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072795C070403
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: 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: However, the Board notes that the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214, which identifies the reason and characterization of the applicant’s discharge, and the Board presumes Government regularity in the discharge process.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002083790C070215
On 21 June 1978, the unit commander recommended the applicant be eliminated from service under the provisions of paragraph 14-33b, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UOTHC discharge. On 18 August 1978, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation with a UOTHC discharge. On 15 September 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070008491
On 8 February 2002, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation, reduced the applicant to the lowest enlisted grade and directed the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). On 14 March 2002, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14 -12c, (2) by reason of Misconduct, with a discharge UOTHC. The evidence of record shows the applicants separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064668C070421
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The separation document confirms that the applicant was discharged for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by court-martial. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001064668SUFFIXRECONYYYYMMDDDATE BOARDED2002/02/21TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE19820228DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200 Chapter 10 .
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040007762C070208
Joe Shroeder | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests that his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge to general under honorable conditions. The specific reasons for his commander’s action was the applicant’s AWOL from 22 October 2001 to 14 May 2002, and from 17 May 2002 to 24 February 2003, his failure to go to his appointed place of duty, and for failure to pay just debts.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040008520C070208
Yolanda Maldonado | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The record does reveal a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on two separate occasions, and one period of his being absent without leave (AWOL). On 22 December 1978, the separation authority directed the applicant’s separation...