| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A Omartian | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. John P. Infante | Member | ||
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | 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 discharge was inequitable because it was based on one incident.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He initially entered active duty on 27 June 1984 and was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 13F (Radio Telephone Operator).
On 30 March 1987, while he was serving at Fort Carson, Colorado, the applicant was discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. On 31 March 1987, he reenlisted for three years.
The applicant’s record confirms that the highest rank he held while serving on active duty was specialist/E-4 (SPC/E-4). The record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition, and it confirms that the only awards he received during his active duty tenure were the Army Service Ribbon and the first award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.
On 27 May 1987, the applicant departed absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit at Fort Carson, Colorado. He remained away for 43 days until returning to military control on 8 July 1987.
On 13 July 1987, a Charge Sheet (DD Form 458) was prepared that preferred a court-martial charge against the applicant for his violation of Article 85 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being AWOL with the intent to remain away permanently from on or about 27 May 1987 to on or about 9 July 1987.
On 13 July 1987, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and he was advised on the basis for the contemplated court-martial and the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ. Counsel also advised the applicant on the effects of an UOTHC discharge and of the rights available to him. Subsequent to this counseling, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant included a statement with his discharge request that indicated that his sister, who was 17 and had a child, had a drug related problem and he felt his presence was needed at home to help her overcome these difficulties.
On 23 July 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request and directed that he be discharged UOTHC, and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. On 10 August 1987, the applicant was discharged accordingly.
The separation document (DD Form 214) prepared on the applicant upon his separation, confirms that he was discharged UOTHC under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial. This document also verifies that at the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 3 years of creditable active military service, and he had accrued 43 days of time lost due to AWOL.
On 11 July 1990, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant’s case and it determined that his discharge was proper and equitable. As a result, it denied his request for an upgrade to his discharge.
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.
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 his discharge is inequitable because it was based on one incident. However, it finds this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.
2. The evidence of record shows the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge. The Board notes that, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.
3. 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 and that the character of his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service. Therefore, the Board concludes that the requested relief is not warranted.
4. It appears that the applicant’s claim that his discharge was based on one incident is true. However, there is no evidence of record and he has failed to provide independent evidence to show that he ever attempted to seek the assistance of his chain of command in pursuing legitimate options to resolve his family problems prior to departing AWOL.
5. 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.
6. 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__ ___JPI___ __RKS __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002078214 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/11/14 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1987/08/10 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | In lieu of Court-Martial |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009699
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 February 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060009699 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. Although the complete elimination packet on the applicant is not in his military records, on 6 July 1989, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the Service under the provisions of Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070016312
Director Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: M Chairperson M Member M Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant provides: a. After just 18 days in Germany, he deserted and returned to the United States.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075795C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 5 May 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be reduced to the pay grade of E-1 and furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040008273C070208
If he desired a review of his discharge, he was required to submit a request to either the Army Discharge Review Board, or the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, and the act of consideration by either board did not imply the discharge would be upgraded. 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 limitation. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011122
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant, after consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and the effects of an UOTHC discharge, voluntarily requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. ____John Infante_________ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20060011122 SUFFIX RECON NO DATE BOARDED 2007/04/03 TYPE OF DISCHARGE HD DATE OF DISCHARGE 1983/07/25 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017423
The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general under honorable conditions discharge (GD). There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15 year statute of limitations. However, the evidence is insufficient to support this claim.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001081C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states, in effect, that his discharge characterized as UOTHC should be upgraded to honorable or general. On 23 August 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070787C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a more favorable discharge. The appropriate authority (a major general) approved his request for discharge on 19 August 1977 and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011455C070208
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against them or of a lesser included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and they must...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010067
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.