| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to fully honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his military records will support upgrading his general discharge.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted on 26 August 1976 with 2 years and 2 months of prior active service. He was promoted to pay grade E-5 and served as a heavy anti-armor weapons crewman.
On 19 April 1984, the applicant had charges preferred against him for losing a .45 caliber pistol, valued at $233.90, through neglect, under Article 108, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
On 14 June 1984, the applicant submitted a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial for the good of the service. The applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf along with that request. In his statement he said that, although he could not be discharged as part of any court-martial sentence, he would still have a court-martial conviction which would prevent him from reenlisting. 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.
That request was accepted by the appropriate authority and the applicant was issued a General Discharge Certificate on 13 July 1984.
The applicant’s separation document shows that he was awarded the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon, the National Defense Service Medal, the Good Conduct Medal (three awards), the Korean Service Ribbon, the NCO Professional Development Ribbon, the Army Achievement Medal, and marksmanship badges.
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.
The Manual for Court-Martial, Appendix 12, Maximum Punishment Chart, shows the maximum punishment for a violation of Article 108, UCMJ, when the value of the property lost through neglect is over $100.00. as a total forfeiture of pay, 1 year confinement, and a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD).
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 was charged with an offense which (contrary to his contention) was punishable by a punitive discharge. He admitted guilt to the charge and requested discharge in lieu of subjecting himself to the possibility of a punitive discharge and confinement. There is no error or injustice in that scenario.
2. To the contrary, an UOTHC discharge is normally issued when a request for discharge in lieu of court-martial is approved. The applicant was granted leniency at the time of his separation when he was issued a General Discharge Certificate.
3. The applicant has not submitted any evidence or argument to be addressed by the Board.
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
___teo __ ___tbr___ ____aao_ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002081673 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030401 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | A71.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011249
The applicant requests that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to no less than general, under honorable conditions. On 18 November 1977, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be issued a DD Form 794A (UOTHC Discharge Certificate). Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070004777C071029
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016293
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 March 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090016293 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant, the widow of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests upgrade of the FSM's under other than honorable conditions discharge to a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The FSMs record contains a copy of a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 16 August 1984, which documents the following charges: a.
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 | CY2003 | 2003084216C070212
On the same date, the applicant’s unit commander recommended that his request for discharge be approved with a UOTHC discharge. There is no evidence in the available records to indicate 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. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070011579
In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charges against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a dishonorable discharge. On 29 March 1984, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he receive an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate and be reduced to the grade of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058680C070421
A DA Form 4466 dated 23 June 1983 indicates that the applicant was changed from Track I to Track II after he came up positive for THC on a urinalysis. The remarks section of the Report of Mental Status Evaluation, DA Form 3822-R, indicates that he was being “discharged for criminal activity.” The panel’s report, entitled “Review of Urinalysis Drug Testing Program,” dated 12 December 1983, concluded that the testing procedures used by all laboratories were adequate to identify drug abuse...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011122
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant, after consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and the effects of an UOTHC discharge, voluntarily requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. ____John Infante_________ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20060011122 SUFFIX RECON NO DATE BOARDED 2007/04/03 TYPE OF DISCHARGE HD DATE OF DISCHARGE 1983/07/25 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00184
The group commander disagreed with the squadron commander, and recommended approval of the applicant’s request to the discharge authority, stating the applicant’s discharge would be in the best interest of the Air Force. The applicant was separated with a UOTHC discharge on 27 December 1984 with a separation code of KFS (request for discharge in lieu of trial by court- martial) and a reenlistment code of 2B (discharged under general or other- than-honorable conditions). The Air Force...
USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00299
MD02-00299 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020117, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the Board first conducts a documentary Review prior to any personal appearance hearing. 970819: Applicant, having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ, Article 27b, requested discharge for the good of the service to escape trial by court-martial.