Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082675C070215
Original file (2002082675C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 26 June 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002082675

         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun Director
Mr. G. E. Vandenberg Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Walter T. Morrison Chairperson
Mr. Lester Echols Member
Mr. Lawrence Foster Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

         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:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records

         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that Staff Sergeant G____ did not submit his request for an extension of his leave and that he was never informed about the offenses that lead to his discharge.

COUNSEL CONTENDS: Counsel declined to make comment.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show that:

The applicant entered active duty on 12 February 1980. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training with award of the military occupational specialty (MOS) 11C (Indirect Fire Infantryman). He reenlisted on 13 August 1982.

The applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) for the period of 10 August 1983 through 22 December 1986 when apprehended by civilian authorities.

On 29 December 1986, after consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and options under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the applicant submitted a formal request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 10. He acknowledged he had been advised of and understood his rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, that he could receive an under other than honorable conditions (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. He acknowledged that there is no automatic upgrade or review of the characterization of his discharge. He elected not to make a statement on his own behalf.

The discharge authority accepted his request and directed that he receive an UOTHC discharge.

The applicant was discharged on 2 February 1997 under other than honorable conditions for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he had 3 years, 7 months, and 8 days of creditable service with 1231 days lost due to AWOL and 34 days of excess leave.

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 86, for periods of AWOL in excess of 30 days.

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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

2. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request for an upgrade on his discharge.

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

__WTM__ __LE ___ __LF ___ DENY APPLICATION




         Carl W. S. Chun
         Director, Army Board for Correction
         of Military Records


INDEX

CASE ID AR2002082675
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED 20030626
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. Upgrade
2. Chapter 10
3.
4.
5.
6.


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066806C070402

    Original file (2002066806C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that except for the one mistake that resulted in his discharge, he served honorably and requests that his case be reviewed based on years of service and post-service good citizenship. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001317C070205

    Original file (20060001317C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 31 August 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060001317 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010276

    Original file (20080010276.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge authority also directed that, in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-13, that the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and that all charges be dismissed effective the date of her discharge. A punitive discharge is authorized for offenses under Article 86, for periods of AWOL in excess of 30 days. _______ _ X _______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010856

    Original file (20110010856.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant was discharged on 11 June 1986 with a UOTHC discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019233

    Original file (20100019233.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requested and was placed on excess leave on 21 May 1986 pending completion of his separation request. Paragraph 3-7c(7) specifically addresses issuance of an UOTHC for discharges issued under the provisions of chapter 10 of this regulation; and d. Chapter 10 provides that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082701C070215

    Original file (2002082701C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered the following evidence: APPLICANT STATES : That he received a general discharge which states that he is “eligible for all benefits ex(c)ept livestock.” EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show that: 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015519

    Original file (20060015519.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 18 September 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be discharged with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Item 18 (Remarks) of the applicant's DD Form 214 shows that he was in an excess leave status for 43 days from 11 September to 23 October 1987. 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084166C070212

    Original file (2003084166C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The regulation, as in effect at the time, stated that a service member had the right to a hearing before a board of officers only if they had six or more years of service. While the applicant has outlined his contentions, what he considers as violations of his rights, and submits documents showing that his mother suffered from mental illness while he was on active duty,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080918C070215

    Original file (2002080918C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show that: 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001745

    Original file (20110001745.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 28 April 1980 after consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 10. On 28 January 1986, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for upgrade of his...