| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. G. E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Linda D. Simmons | Member | |
| Ms. Marla J. Troup | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, he was sexually abused and raped by a sergeant during advanced individual training (AIT) and was too ashamed to come forward prior to this time. He also states that he has suffered from a bipolar disorder all his life.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant entered active duty on 31 October 1979. He completed basic combat training and AIT with award of the military occupational specialty (MOS) 94B (Food Preparation Specialist).
Upon completion of AIT, the applicant received orders to Fort Meade, Maryland. While enroute he went AWOL (absent without leave), 29 April 1980. The applicant turned himself into military authorities at Fort McClellan, Alabama on 29 May 1980. He was returned to Ft. Meade on 16 June 1980.
On 20 June 1980, the applicant again went AWOL. He was apprehended by civilian authorities in Anniston, Alabama and returned to military control on 6 January 1981.
On 13 January 1981 court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant and he was afforded physical and mental status examinations (MSE). The MSE, conducted 14 January 1981, found the applicant to be depressed but fully alert with normal thought content. He was determined to be mentally responsible, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in any proposed administrative proceedings. He met the medical retention standards of Army Regulation 40-501 and was qualified for separation.
After consulting with military counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, on 16 January 1981. He acknowledged that he was guilty as charged or guilty of a lesser-included offense for which a punitive discharge was also authorized. He acknowledged that he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions that would deprive him of all benefits as a veteran. He submitted a statement to the effect that he could not adjust to the Army. He reported that he was so unhappy with the situation that he had attempted suicide while in AIT.
The applicant was placed in excess leave, on 16 January 1981, pending review of his request for discharge.
On 17 February 1981, the discharge authority accepted the applicant’s request and directed that he be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 and that his service be characterized as under other than honorable conditions.
The applicant was discharged on 12 March 1981. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he had 8 months and 26 days of creditable service, 230 days of lost time, and 56 days of excess leave.
A review of the applicant’s service medical records does not reveal any complaints of or treatment for any type of mental, psychiatric or psychological conditions while on active duty.
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 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. His service is appropriately characterized by his overall record.
2. The applicant has provided no documentation or other evidence to support his contention that the behavior that led to his discharge was the result of sexual abuse while attending AIT.
3. Further, there is no evidence in the available records which would indicate that the applicant complained of, suffered from, or was treated by medical personnel for any nervous condition of any type while he was serving on active duty; that he was unable to distinguish right from wrong; or that he was unable to adhere to the right.
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.
| CASE ID | AR2002078744 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20031028 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | Up grade |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078874C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that at the time of his court-martial, he was not advised of his rights nor was he represented by counsel, which denied him due process. The ADRB denied his request on 29 April 1982.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070003794
On 6 January 1982, the major general serving as Commander, U.S. Army Aviation Center and Fort Rucker, Fort Rucker, Alabama, approved the applicant's request for discharge from the U.S. Army under the provisions of Chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 and directed that the applicant be furnished an under other than honorable discharge. The applicant contends, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge because the reason...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070018309
On 12 December 1981, Headquarters, First United States Army, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, published Orders 240-42, relieving the applicant from his USAR unit of assignment for being an unsatisfactory participant, and assigning him to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training), effective 16 November 1981, under other than honorable conditions. On 13 April 1985, U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center, St. Louis, Missouri, published Orders Number D-04-907107, ordering the applicant discharged...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008845
When he requested a discharge for the good of the service on 15 November 1971 he also requested a physical and mental examination. His counsel informed him that he would receive a complete medical examination prior to the completion and approval of his discharge. With respect to the correction of his records to show he received a medical discharge, although he may have suffered from back pain due to scoliosis and received an examination that stated he was not qualified for heavy work at...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015920
Following consultation with legal counsel, he requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. On 24 July 1981, consistent with the chain of command recommendations, the separation authority approved his request for discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002913
However, his records do contain his DD Form 214 which shows he was discharged under other than honorable conditions in lieu of trial by court-martial on 26 June 1981 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. There is no evidence in the available records to show he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. The applicant's contentions and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077239C070215
The Board considered the following evidence: On 6 March 1968, the applicant, still undergoing AIT, accepted NJP for being AWOL from 4-5 March 1968. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002077239SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20030313TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UD)DATE OF DISCHARGE19690415DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-212DISCHARGE REASONA51.00BOARD DECISION(DENY)REVIEW AUTHORITYISSUES 1.144.50002.3.4.5.6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076226C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He further states that he did not want to enlist at the time but had no choice under the circumstances. He also states that he was ill-prepared mentally to be in the Army and did not receive the medical assistance he needed at the time to deal with what he considered a miserable and depressing environment.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100015289
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. SPCM Order Number 38, Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Center and Fort Dix, dated 12 July 1985, shows that after completion of all required post-trial and appellate reviews, the convening authority ordered her BCD sentence to be executed.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006978
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The record does include a properly constituted separation document (DD Form 214) that shows she was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial, on 20 July 1981. An under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial.