| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Shirley L. Powell | Member | ||
| Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: That upon joining the Army it was found that he was mentally and psychologically impaired. Immaturity was also a factor in that reasonable judgment was lost. The stress of military responsibilities, a new marriage, a pregnant wife, inadequate finances, and no assistance or support added to his stress. To further complicate the situation, he began having seizures where he would have recurring blackouts. He experienced extreme depression when his wife left. He needed money to return to his pregnant wife so he forged two money orders from a convenience store. He now knows what he did was wrong. He has been receiving psychiatric therapy to help him have insight and to use proper judgment in addressing his problems. He provides his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214, as supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was born on 30 April 1960. He completed two years of high school. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 January 1979 after receiving a waiver (nonsupport of child and an arrest for assault). He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11C (Indirect Fire Infantryman). He was assigned to Fort Riley, KS on or about 19 April 1979.
On 7 August 1979, the applicant departed absent without leave (AWOL). On 15 November 1979, he was arrested by civil authorities in Florida on an outstanding warrant from Kansas for two counts of forgery. He was transferred to the Riley County jail in Manhattan, KS. He was convicted of two counts of forgery and on 11 April 1980 was sentenced to confinement for not less than 1 year and not more than 10 years on each count, sentences to run concurrently.
On 11 June 1980, separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, civil conviction, was initiated. On 15 June 1980, the applicant was notified of the proposed separation action. He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and waived representation by an attorney. He submitted a statement in his own behalf but it is not available. He indicated he did not intend to appeal his civil conviction. On 9 September 1980, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be furnished a UOTHC discharge certificate.
On 19 September 1980, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, with a discharge UOTHC, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, misconduct – conviction by civil court. He had completed 7 months and 4 days of creditable service and had 410 days of lost time.
The applicant's service medical records are not available.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for misconduct. That regulation provides, in pertinent part, for the elimination of enlisted personnel for misconduct when they are initially convicted by civil authorities, or action taken against them which is tantamount to a finding of guilty, if a punitive discharge would be authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial, 1984, as amended, or the sentence by civil authorities includes confinement of 6 months or more, without regard to suspension or probation.
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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. There is no evidence of record and the applicant provides none to show he was mentally and psychologically impaired or that such impairment resulted in the misconduct for which he was convicted by civil authorities.
3. 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 _ __SLP__ ___EJA__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002078194 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/10/22 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1980/09/19 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, ch 14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A61.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016669
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 21 August 1979, the applicant was notified by the Army and Air Force Exchange Service he had rendered a dishonored check on 10 August 1979. c. On 7 September 1979, the applicant was counseled by his noncommissioned officer in charge for sleeping in class. c. Chapter 14 (Separation for Misconduct), Section III (Conviction by Civil Court), in effect at the time, states a Soldier will be considered for discharge and his case initiated...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007017
BOARD DATE: 18 October 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120007017 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 9 December 1980, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts, approved his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, and directed the issuance of an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. His repeated misconduct and failure to respond to counseling by members of his chain of command diminished the...
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 | CY2002 | 2002078645C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Upon his return from the second trip, he was confronted by the CID and told that he would be charged with black marketing and dishonorably discharged if he did not cooperate. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061148C070421
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. On 20 November 1979, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct. A discharge UOTHC is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013512
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant's record shows after having prior active military service he enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 March 1979. The conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120013667
On 13 May 1980, his immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, for misconduct - frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33b, by reason of misconduct - frequent involvement in incidents...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002689C070205
On 20 February 1981, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635- 200, chapter14, for misconduct-conviction by civil court, with an UOTHC discharge. Therefore, after carefully evaluating the evidence submitted by the applicant and the evidence of record in this case, it is determined that the applicant’s discharge processing was conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and that the character of his service is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006095
On an unknown date, while at the U. S. Army Retraining Brigade, Fort Riley, KS, action was initiated to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. On 17 July 1981, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, frequent involvement in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064332C070421
On the same date, the Cadre Review Board determined that the applicant should be separated under the On 6 October 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. Army policy states that a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a GD under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.