| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deyon D. Battle | Analyst |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member | |
| Mr. Frank C. Jones | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That at the time of his enlistment and discharge he was immature. He states that over the years he has grown into a man of great character and that he only had two months left in the Army at the time of his discharge. He goes on to state that he got married and was young at the time and that he did not realize the importance of serving his country with pride and dignity. He concludes by stating that he is requesting with prayer that this Board will make a favorable decision in his case.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 22 February 1979, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1. He successfully completed his training as an infantryman. On 1 December 1979, he was promoted to the pay grade of E-2 and to pay grade E-3 on 1 April 1981.
Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 19 June 1979, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.
On 9 August 1979, NJP was imposed against him for failure to go to his appointed place of duty. His punishment consisted of restriction and extra duty.
On 6 October 1980, NJP was imposed against the applicant for stealing one pair of low quarters. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and a reduction in pay grade.
On 20 December 1979, NJP was imposed against him for assaulting his superior noncommissioned officer. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.
On 26 January 1981, NJP was imposed against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 8 January until 9 January 1981. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.
He had NJP imposed against him again on 10 February 1981, for being AWOL from 2 February until 10 February 1981. His punishment consisted of 21 days in the correctional custody facility and a reduction in pay grade.
The applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial on 14 April 1981, of being AWOL from 24 March until 1 April 1981 and from 8 April until 13 April 1981. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 30 days and a reduction to the pay grade of E-1.
On 20 January 1982, the applicant was notified that charges were pending against him for being AWOL from 16 November 1981 until 4 January 1982. He acknowledged receipt of the notification and after consulting with counsel, he waived his rights and he submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge on 29 January 1982. Accordingly, on 9 February 1982, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial. His Certificate of Release or Discharge (DD Form 214) shows that he completed only 8 months and 25 days of total active service. He had approximately 118 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
On 26 May 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
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. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
3. The applicant's contention that he was immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief. The Board notes that the applicant was almost 21 years of age at the time of his first AWOL.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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
___mkp _ __reb ___ __fcj ____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002083073 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/06/24 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19820209 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, ch 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | 689 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 708 | 144.7100 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070796C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080710C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The appropriate authority approved his request on 28 February 1983 and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions. Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions while on excess leave, on 18 March 1983, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072759C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to either an honorable or medical discharge. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he should have been discharged by reason of medical disability because he was addicted to drugs and alcohol and was never offered any help for his illness.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012402
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 02 December 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080012402 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 1 April 1998 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge.
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050000823C070206
The applicant requests upgrade of his bad conduct discharge to an honorable discharge. On 21 April 1981, the military judge sentenced the applicant to reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of $250.00 per month for four months, confinement at hard labor for 75 days, and to be discharged from the service with a bad conduct discharge. Therefore, there is no basis to grant clemency in the form of an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000823C070206
The applicant requests upgrade of his bad conduct discharge to an honorable discharge. On 21 April 1981, the military judge sentenced the applicant to reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of $250.00 per month for four months, confinement at hard labor for 75 days, and to be discharged from the service with a bad conduct discharge. Therefore, there is no basis to grant clemency in the form of an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000823C070206
The applicant requests upgrade of his bad conduct discharge to an honorable discharge. On 21 April 1981, the military judge sentenced the applicant to reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of $250.00 per month for four months, confinement at hard labor for 75 days, and to be discharged from the service with a bad conduct discharge. Therefore, there is no basis to grant clemency in the form of an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018387
The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable or a general discharge. He concludes by requesting an upgrade of his discharge based on his overall record of service. The fact that the VA has determined that his service from 21 May 1976 to 20 May 1980 is considered as honorable for VA purposes is not a sufficient basis for upgrading his discharge when considering the nature of his offenses and that fact that at the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063346C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The convening authority approved the sentence on 29 April 1983; however, he set aside the portion of the sentence pertaining to the forfeiture of pay on 9 May 1983. On 17 October 1983, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, based on his disciplinary record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010310
Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted. Accordingly, his punishment was not disproportionate to the offenses for which he was convicted and he has failed to show sufficient evidence or reasons to warrant an upgrade of his discharge based on clemency. As a result, clemency is not warranted in this case.