| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | ||
| Ms. Tracey L. Pinson | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his being young and very much in love impaired his ability to serve in the Army.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 15 April 1981, the applicant enlisted in the Army. He successfully, completed basic combat training (BCT) and was subsequently assigned to Fort Lee, Virginia for advanced individual training (AIT). His record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition and it confirms that the highest rank he attained while on active duty was private/E-1.
While assigned to Fort Lee, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on the following two occasions for the offenses indicated: 21 July 1981, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty; and 28 July 1981, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from on or about 15 to on or about 20 July 1981, wrongfully using provoking words, wrongfully communicating a threat, and unlawfully striking another soldier. On 3 August 1981, he went AWOL and remained away until returning to military control at the US Army Personnel Control Facility, Fort Dix,
New Jersey on 16 October 1981.
On 20 October 1981, a court-martial charge was preferred against the applicant for the AWOL period from 3 August to 16 October 1981. After consulting with legal counsel and being advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by
court-martial; the maximum allowable punishment; and the possible effects of an UOTHC discharge, the applicant voluntarily requested to be discharged for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.
On 26 October 1981, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s discharge request and directed he be separated UOTHC and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.
On 9 November 1981, the applicant was discharged accordingly. At the time of his discharge he had completed only 3 months and 10 days of creditable active military service and he had accrued 81 days of time lost due to AWOL.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue of limitations.
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 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 court-martial charges have been preferred. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, 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 contentions that his being young and very much in love impaired his ability to serve and led to the AWOL related misconduct that ultimately resulted in his discharge. However, it finds these factors are 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. In doing so, he admitted guilt to the stipulated offense under the UCMJ.
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. It also notes that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally UOTHC and that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge. Finally, the Board finds the applicant’s characterization of service was appropriate based on his short and undistinguished overall record of service.
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
__KAK__ __MHM _ __TLP __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002079255 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/01/28 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19811108 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | In lieu of trial by CM |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.7100 |
| 2. | 144.9301 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001054289C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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: The Board also noted that he was almost 19 years old when he went AWOL and found no evidence that he was any less mature than other 19-year old soldiers who successfully completed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020458
The applicant states: a. On 18 June 1981, the applicant was discharged accordingly. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068103C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES: “I…would like to request an upgrade on my discharge from the U.S. Army. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004129
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003668C070206
The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows that he was discharged on 2 April 1981 under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. Evidence of record shows the applicant acknowledged in his own hand the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions.
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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091649C070212
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009604
The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD). On 3 February 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, and directed he receive an UOTHC discharge. The evidence of record shows the applicant accepted NJP for twice being absent without leave and he was charged with the commission of an offense...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007492
The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. He respectfully requests upgrade of his discharge. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008890
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. He received a second NJP for a 2-day AWOL, on 24 July 1981. The punishment included forfeiture of $100 pay per month for 1 month and 15 days correctional custody.