| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. G. E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Mr. Frank C. Jones, II | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, the weapon that was lost on base had been paid for before he was discharged. He states that he was told that his discharge would be automatically upgraded in 30 days. He submits that the three character reference letters to show his contributions to his community and that an upgrade is warranted.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He entered active duty on 9 November 1976. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training with award of the military occupational specialty (MOS) 31B (Field Communication Equipment Repairman).
The applicant’s record contains six negative counseling statements, one for absence without leave (AWOL) and five for being absent from his place of duty.
He received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on four separate occasions, once for position of marijuana and three times for AWOL.
Although the actual charge sheet is not of record, the applicant was charged with violation of Article 108 concerning the loss of a military weapon of a value of more than $100.
On 27 August 1979, after consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request, under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 10, for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. He acknowledged he had been advised of and understood his rights under the UCMJ, that he could receive an UOTHC discharge which would deprive him of many or all of his benefits as a veteran, that he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received an UOTHC discharge, and that there is no automatic upgrading or review of a less than honorable discharge.
The discharge authority accepted the applicant's request and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions.
The applicant was discharged on 20 August 1979. He had 2 years, 9 months, and 19 days of creditable service and 24 days lost time.
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.
The Manual for Courts-Martial, Table of Maximum Punishments, sets forth the maximum punishments for offenses chargeable under the UCMJ. A punitive discharge is authorized for offenses under Article 108, for negligent lose of government property in excess of $100 in value.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and 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. At the time that the applicant requested discharge he signed a statement that there was no automatic review or upgrade consideration for the characterization of his discharge.
3. While the Board has taken note of the applicant's reported good post-service conduct, it is not is so meritorious as to outweigh the offense that led to his discharge.
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 | AR2002080731 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030529 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | A92.21 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081673C070215
He then admitted his guilt to the charge and requested that he be given a general discharge instead of an Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge based upon his 10 years of honorable, active service. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014235
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 29 January 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he issued a UOTHC discharge. There is no evidence showing the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110002263
The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 27 June 1979 in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with service characterized as under other than honorable conditions. Chapter 10 provides that a member who 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. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020034
SM claims he decided he was never going to return. In fact, in his interview with PCF officials immediately following his return to military control, he stated he had been unhappy with the Army since basic training, and he had no intent to return following his absence to attend his grandmother's funeral. Regardless, after 108 days of lost time due to his AWOL status, he was returned to military control to face court-martial charges.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013574
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to a general discharge (GD). The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant upon his discharge confirms he was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with a UOTCH Discharge Certificate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015915C071029
The U. S. Army Court of Military Review considered the applicant’s request to set aside his conviction because of the failure of the convening authority to take action until 181 days after the sentence was adjudged. On 20 October 1982, the applicant was discharged with a bad conduct discharge pursuant to his sentence by court-martial. The applicant was an Acting Sergeant, serving as an ammunition supply storage specialist, when he was convicted by a general-court-martial of stealing, in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091653C070212
The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a more favorable discharge. The application submitted in this case is dated 3 May 2003. The applicant consulted with counsel on 15 June 1979, at which time the counsel again advised the applicant of his rights and the repercussions of requesting and/or receiving a discharge under other than honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003152C070208
The applicant submitted a statement with his discharge request. On 28 March 1980, the applicant was discharged accordingly. However, there is no evidence of record to support this claim.
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500648
The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). Issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative (Civilian Counsel):“Whether the characterization of discharge was warranted given the circumstances of the offense charge and considering the entire service member’s exemplary record during the period of his enlistment. The Applicant’s violations of Articles 107, 108 and 121 are...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010673
The applicant requests that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant was discharged on 27 October 1982 in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with his service characterized as under other than honorable conditions. The applicant has provided no evidence or a convincing argument to show his discharge should be upgraded and his...