| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Vic Whitney | Analyst |
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher | Member | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In an attached statement he provides a personal history since his discharge where he became an ordained minister and youth pastor. He goes on to state that an investigation in Korea and in the United States indicated his innocence concerning involvement in the black-market.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty as a supply specialist on 13 January 1976 with 18 months prior Army Reserve service. He was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 effective 23 October 1980. There is no other record of disciplinary action against the applicant in the available record.
The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not in the available records. The applicant acknowledges in his statement that he was investigated for black-market activities and his commander was going to recommend that he be court-martialed with the added charge of adultery. He also acknowledges that he requested a discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial and thought he would receive a general discharge but he did not.
Orders were issued on 7 June 1984 that reduced the applicant to pay grade E-1 effective 31 May 1984. The authority cited was Army Regulation 600-200, paragraph 8-11 that provides for reduction to the lowest enlisted grade when the general court-martial convening authority determines that a soldier is to be discharged from the service under other than honorable conditions.
Effective 14 June 1984, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had 8 years, 10 months, and 2 days creditable active duty.
There is no evidence of record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade within the 15-year time limit.
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 charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. 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. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the offenses he was apparently charged with.
2. The applicant chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial. Although he may now feel that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.
3. 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.
4. 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
__tk____ ___kf___ ___mm___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002081209 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030701 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19840614 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, CH 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | A71 |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.02 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078645C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Upon his return from the second trip, he was confronted by the CID and told that he would be charged with black marketing and dishonorably discharged if he did not cooperate. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086678C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: 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 | CY2004 | 2004102787C070208
Richard Dunbar | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. A review of the available records fails to show that the applicant ever 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 of record clearly shows that he was not tried by a court-martial because he submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service, in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007083
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 September 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080007083 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. In this statement, the applicant stated that in July 1982 he was approached by a Korean man who asked the applicant if he wanted to make some money.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014238
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant's voluntary request for discharge specifically addresses the effects of a chapter 10 discharge and a discharge under other than honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060006153C070205
The applicant states he did his best as a Soldier and should be granted an honorable discharge. On 13 September 1974, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. 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),...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019002
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States) to upgrade his character of separation from bad conduct to honorable. Special Court Martial Order Number 3697, issued by the Department of the Army, Officer of the Judge Advocate General, Board of Review, Washington, DC, on 7 September 1951, decided that, with respect to the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019157
The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with the laws and regulations applicable at the time. _______ _X _______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007424
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant also states that COL (Ret) C____u ordered a United States Army Criminal Investigation Command (USACIDC, also known as CID) investigation of his appeal in the 1983/1984 time period. A DD Form 149, dated 30 April 1984, shows the applicant requested consideration by the ABCMR for correction of all military records to reflect that all findings of guilty to the charges and specifications set forth in Department of the Army,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011150
On 1 April 1985, at Camp Casey, Korea, a board of officers convened to hear testimony and review evidence pertaining to whether the applicant should be discharged from the Army for unsatisfactory performance. There is no record the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board seeking a discharge upgrade during that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200 provides that Soldiers with more than 6 years of total active and Reserve military service at the time of...