| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Joyce A. Wright | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Paul M. Smith | Member | |
| Ms. Jennifer L. Prater | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to general under honorable conditions.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was informed that prior to his separation that he would receive a general discharge under honorable conditions; however, his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows under other than honorable conditions. In support of his application he submits a copy of his DD Form 214.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show he entered active duty on 25 August 1976, as a light weapons infantryman.
Between 8 April 1977 and 26 January 1978, he received nonjudicial punishment on five occasions under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failure to obey a lawful order from his superior noncommissioned officer on two occasions, failure to go to his appointed place of duty on two occasions, being intoxicated, being disrespectful toward his noncommissioned officer, and for sleeping at his post. His punishments consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeitures of pay, restrictions, and extra duties.
He was convicted by a summary court-martial on 5 October 1977 for being disrespectful in language toward his superior noncommissioned officer. His sentence consisted of a forfeiture of pay and confinement at hard labor for 25 days.
Between October 1977 and December 1977, he received numerous counseling statements for sleeping in class, unsecured wall locker, failing barracks inspection, dereliction of duty on two occasions, failure to be at his appointed place of duty, and for receiving several unsatisfactory evaluations. Social workers, leadership team, and unit cadre also counseled him.
The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on 19 December 1977, which determined that he could distinguish right from wrong and that he possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative or judicial proceedings.
The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 19 December 1977, and was found qualified for separation.
On 13 December 1977, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness-frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities. He based his recommendation on the applicant’s summary courts-martial, four Article 15s, numerous counseling statements, and habits and traits of character manifested by repeated commission of petty offenses and habitual shirking.
After consulting with counsel, the applicant requested a personal appearance and consideration of his case by a board of officers. He also requested representation by counsel and elected not to submit statements in his own behalf. He acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration if a discharge under other than honorable conditions were issued.
On 16 December 1977 he was ordered to appear before a board of officers on 23 December 1977 to determine if he should be discharged from the service due to unfitness.
The facts and circumstances pertains to the applicant's board of officers are not present in the available records. However, his DD Form 214 shows that on 6 February 1978, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness (frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities). He was furnished a UOTHC discharge. He had a total of 1 year, 4 months and 2 days of creditable and had a total of 20 days of lost time due to confinement.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge with its 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the policy and prescribes the procedure for administrative separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13, in effect at that time, applied to separation for unfitness and unsuitability. At that time, paragraph 13-5a(1) provided for the separation of individuals for unfitness (frequents incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities). When separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was issued by the separation authority.
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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. The type of separation directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.
3. The Board notes the applicant’s contention; however, there is no evidence in the applicant’s personnel records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support his contention or to show that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.
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
__jl____ __ps___ ___jp__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002079904 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030603 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19780206 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, chap 3 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 360 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070362C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge be upgraded to honorable. 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 | CY1996 | 9606005C070209
On 18 January 1978, the applicants commander officially recommended that the applicant be discharged under paragraph 13-5, Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature; He indicated that the applicants conduct and efficiency were unsatisfactory; that the applicant was sent to the USARB for the purpose of receiving correctional training and treatment necessary to return him to duty as a well-trained soldier with improved attitude and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000220C070206
The board found that the applicant was undesirable for further retention in the military service because of unfitness and recommended that he be discharged from service because of unfitness with the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. On 4 December 1974, the applicant was discharged accordingly. Therefore, given the circumstances in this case, there is insufficient evidence to grant his request.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010322
His enlistment contract indicates he enlisted for training in MOS 91B and airborne training. The applicant's service record reveals he enlisted in the service for training in MOS 91B and for airborne training. However, his service record is void of evidence which shows he completed airborne training.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002860
On 2 June 1978, the applicants company commander recommended the applicant be discharged because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Separation), paragraph 14-33. On 22 June 1978, a board of officers convened and after consideration of the evidence found the applicant had the ability to perform military duty in a satisfactory manner and his misconduct was evidenced by his conviction by a special...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002661
On 21 January 1977, his commander recommended his separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for misconduct/unfitness due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature. b. Paragraph 3-7b states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The evidence of record confirms his separation processing for unfitness was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091484C070212
The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of her discharge on 13 July 1983. After reviewing all of the evidence in her case, the ADRB determined that her discharge properly characterized her service and voted unanimously to deny her request on 28 December 1983. Records show the applicant should have discovered the error or injustice now under consideration on 28 December 1983; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006706
The applicant requests upgrade of his discharge, from an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to a general discharge. The applicant states he would not have requested the discharge he received if he had better understood what the discharge meant. At the time, a UOTHC discharge was normally considered appropriate for Soldiers separated under chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018266
He provides: * Four letters from family members * Several mental health reports * Medical statements * Six Records of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) * DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The mental health reports he provided were considered.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607771C070209
PURPOSE: To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. The board found the applicant undesirable for further military service and recommended that he be discharged from service for unfitness with a discharge UOTHC. On 25 January 1978, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness...