| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Antoinette Farley | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Robert L. Duecaster | Member | |
| Ms. Marla J. Troup | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That her general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions (UHC) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that her discharge should be upgraded due to her previous circumstances. She states, that she has no arrest record nor has she ever been court-martialed. She further states, that she was frightened into leaving the service and was used by her command, in order to get to someone else. She also believes this should not have happened. She claims, after leaving the service, she went to school, held a private “investigative operative” license and was a bonded employee. She further claims, that her employer’s have asked her why she does not possess an honorable discharge. She states that she did not know she could ask for an upgrade.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
She enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 November 1974. She completed basic combat training and advanced individual training (AIT) and was awarded military occupational specialty 75B (Unit Clerk). She was then assigned to duty in her MOS at Fort Dix, New Jersey. On 24 September 1975, she was transferred to Fort Jackson, South Carolina for duty as a unit clerk.
On 6 August 1976, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant
for wrongfully having in her possession fourteen (14) ounces, more or less of marijuana on 30 July 1976.
On 10 August 1976, the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation
AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. Her request acknowledged that she was guilty as charged or of a lesser-included offense for which she could receive a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. She indicated that she did not desire further rehabilitation and that she had no desire to perform military service. She acknowledged that she understood the nature and consequences of the under other than honorable conditions discharge, including that she might lose some or all veteran benefits. The applicant also submitted a statement in her own behalf, in which she pointed out that she never had any prior disciplinary actions taken against her. She realized that her possession of the marijuana was wrong. She added that she was attempting to correct her wrong by cooperating with the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) and asked that her request be approved.
On 26 September 1976, the separation authority approved the applicant's request and directed she be discharged under honorable conditions and issued a general discharge certificate. On 24 October 1976, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.
She had 1 year, 10 months and 6 days of creditable service and no lost time. The highest pay grade she held was E-3.
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 general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
The Manual for Courts-Martial, Table of Maximum Punishments, as then in effect and the edition currently in effect, provide that a punitive discharge is authorized for any possession of marijuana.
There is no available evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board, for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
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 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. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
2. The applicant’s entire record of service was considered during the review of this case. The Board was convinced that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable.
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
__RJW__ ___RD __ ___MJT _ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003084086 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030826 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19761004 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, chapter 10, UHC |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A144.70.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | DIRECTOR |
| ISSUES 1. | A144.7400 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062432C070421
On 8 June 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board determined that the character and reason for the applicant’s discharge were both proper and equitable, and it voted to deny her request for an upgrade to her discharge. 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. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057474C070420
On 21 February 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge. The evidence of record shows that the applicant had not served honorably up until the time of the incident for which he was discharged. The Board is cognizant of the fact that the applicant was 17 years old at the time of his enlistment.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010417
He states he cannot attain a full-time police position until his discharge is changed. On 22 November 1976 after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant submitted a request for 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. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against him or her or of a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9610157C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to show he was honorably discharged. The commander recommended he receive a general discharge, under other than honorable conditions. At the time of the applicants separation, the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge (under other than honorable conditions).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008895
He had received an honorable discharge for his service from 20 January 1972 to 30 July 1974. a. On 24 July 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request for upgrade. However, based on his request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, under current standards he would also have received a discharge under other than honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068706C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant, as the widow of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests that her husband’s discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable. However, the Board also noted the FSM’s record of service included four nonjudicial punishments for drug and alcohol related incidents.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020492
She acknowledged that if her request were accepted, she could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) and be furnished a UD Certificate. However, at the time of the applicant's separation, the regulation provided for the issuance of a UD. ____________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 | CY2010 | 20100030229
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. ____________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 | CY2010 | 20100007093
The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to a general discharge. At that time, he requested leave and his request was denied. He was subsequently discharged in pay grade E-1 on 2 February 1977, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072029C070403
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: He did not appeal the punishment.