| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor Jr. | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Terry L. Placek | Member | ||
| Mr. Robert Duecaster | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that a review of his records will show that his record of nonjudicial punishment was only for minor isolated offenses, that he had average conduct and efficiency ratings, was an E-4 promotable at the time of his discharge, had a prior honorable discharge and had received awards and commendations. He further states that he was accused of bribery and after being interrogated by the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) for 4 to 6 hours, he, in a state of exhaustion, confessed to the charge. He continues by stating that he was given a public defender who did not effectively advise him of his rights and the severity of the penalty he faced. He goes on to state that he accepted discharge under chapter 10 without fully understanding the repercussions he would face in civilian life. He also states that he accepts the fact that he did not behave in a manner befitting a soldier; however, he was 21 years of age at the time and his career was ended over the small sum of $10.00. He ask the Board to grant him clemency in the form of an upgrade of his discharge because he has been a productive member of society and should not continue to pay for a mistake that was regrettably made in his youth 20 years ago. In support of his application he submits a copy of a CID Report of Investigation (ROI) pertaining to his case.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted on 13 June 1979 for a period of 4 years and training as a finance specialist. He completed his training and was transferred to Germany on 12 October 1979. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 July 1981.
He departed Germany on 11 October 1981 and was transferred to Fort Lewis, Washington, where he reenlisted on 12 April 1983 for a period of 3 years. He attained promotion list standing in June 1983.
The facts and circumstances surrounding his administrative discharge are not present in the available records. However, his records do contain a duly constituted report of separation (DD Form 214), which shows that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 25 April 1984, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had served 4 years, 10 months and 13 days of total active service and was awarded the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon, the Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon, the Army Good Conduct Medal, and the Expert Marksmanship Badge with M-16 Rifle bar.
A review of the CID ROI submitted by the applicant shows that the applicant was titled for soliciting a bribe, extortion and assault on 22 February 1984. A synopsis of the investigation indicates that the applicant prepared a travel voucher for a soldier departing Fort Lewis en route to Germany and then proceeded to inform the soldier that he had overpaid him and that he should pay him (the applicant) $10.00 to keep quiet about it. The soldier refused to pay the applicant and he grabbed the soldier by the arm to prevent him from leaving the finance office. The incident was witnessed by several others in the area at the time. The soldier reported the applicant and identified him as well.
During the course of the investigation the applicant gave a sworn statement in which he gave a different account of the events but admitted that he had told the soldier he would keep quiet for $10.00.
There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of the 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 charges have been preferred, submit a voluntary request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges or to a lesser included offense that is punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and they must indicate that they have been briefed and understand the consequences of such a request as well as the discharge they might receive. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was at that time and is still 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 must be presumed that 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.
2. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.
3. After being afforded the opportunity to assert his innocence before a trial by court-martial, he voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a felony conviction on his records. While he may now believe that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date, especially considering the charges against him and his otherwise undistinguished record of service.
4. The Board has noted the applicant's contentions and finds that they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief under the circumstances. While he may believe that the charges against him were minor and amounted to a $10.00 offense, he admitted to using his position for personal gain, to the detriment of the government and the individual soldier and violated the trust placed in him. The Board finds that such conduct is not indicative of honorable service.
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
___tlp___ ___rld___ __rvo ___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002082418 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/04/24 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1984/04/25 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/ch10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Gd of svc |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 689 | 144.7000/A70.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012363
He states that the stigma of his discharge has followed him throughout his life and he requests that his discharge be upgraded. At the time of his enlistment, he indicated that he had completed 10 years of education. The evidence of record indicates that when the applicant was in the Army, he took money and candy from a vending machine without paying; he purchased, and sold marijuana; and he wrongfully appropriated a boat that was government property.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070494C070402
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) expunge his name from the title (subject) block of Criminal Investigation Division (CID) Report of Investigation (ROI) #00-CID016-58830-5G2 and direct that the record be removed from the Defense Investigative Index (sic). On 28 March 2001, the applicant, his attorney, and members of his chain of command met with the Commander of the 22nd Military Police Battalion and the Fort Lewis CID Special Agent in Charge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021312
The Soldiers who told U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) investigators that they bought drugs from him were already in trouble and were falsely accusing him so their charges would be reduced or dismissed. On 15 September 1980, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017409
Counsel requests the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (USACIDC, also referred to simply as CID) Report of Investigation (ROI) for rape be expunged from the applicant's records. The entire military record does not contain any other statements by 2 privates that the female private disclosed the alleged rape events to them on 14 January 2001. A subsequent investigation did not establish sufficient evidence to prove or disprove the private's allegations that the applicant raped her.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9610893C070209
The applicant contends that at no time was he placed under arrest, told that he was being charged with anything, or given any written charges. That ROI shows that the applicant was titled (the subject of a CID investigation) with six other enlisted soldiers for their involvement with illegal drugs. The CID investigation is silent on the applicant being an informant in the case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019055
The applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of his two earlier requests: * to have his name removed from a Criminal Investigation Division (CID) report of investigation (ROI) * to upgrade his under other than honorable conditions discharge 2. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110002773
The ADRB review shows: a. a CID Report of Investigation (ROI), dated 15 March 2004, indicated the applicant was charged with reckless driving resulting in personal injury, negligent homicide, and reckless driving (all acts occurring on 13 August 2003); b. the specific facts and circumstances leading to his discharge were not in the available records; and c. a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) was on file that indicated he was discharged on 2 September 2004...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110013194
In his request for discharge he indicated he understood or acknowledged: * he was making this request of his own free will and had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person * he was advised of the implications that are attached to his discharge and understood his discharge would be under other than honorable conditions * 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004063C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against them or of a lesser included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and they must...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052760C070420
The applicant requests, through counsel, that his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) be corrected to show he was not discharged but rather remained on active duty; that he was afforded early retirement with corresponding back pay and allowances as if he had not been discharged in 1998; that his discharge cite retirement as the narrative reason and contain no stigmatizing entry as to separation code, reentry code or in any other respect; that he receive such decorations as he would have...