| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Rosa M. Chandler |
Analyst |
| Ms. Jennifer L. Prater | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member | |
| Mr. Patrick H. McGann, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was only 18 years of age at the time of the incident and he did not truly understand the ramifications of receiving a UOTHC discharge. He understands that theft will not be tolerated in any form, but his offense was an isolated incident that involved only $72.00 and may have warranted a lighter sentence. He also states that he received excellent grades during training. He submits in support of his request an Associates of Applied Science Degree and a certificate for completion of a computer drafting and design course from Trinity Valley Community College, Athens, Texas.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
That on 26 October, he enlisted in the Delayed Enlistment Program (DEP) and on 30 December 1982, at age 19, he was discharged from the DEP and he enlisted in the Regular Army.
The applicant completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 12E (Atomic Demolitions Munitions Specialist). On 6 May 1983, he was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas, with duties in his MOS.
On 24 June 1983, nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was imposed against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit on 6 June 1983. His punishment included 30 days' assignment to the Correctional Custody Facility, reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1 and the forfeiture of $286 pay per month for 2 months.
On 4 January 1984, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for stealing a captain's AM/FM radio cassette player, valued at $72.00, on 24 October 1983. On 19 January 1984, he consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. He was advised that separation under chapter 10 could lead to a UOTHC discharge. He authenticated a statement in which he acknowledged that he understood the ramifications of receiving a UOTHC discharge. He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On the same date, the applicant’s unit commander recommended that his request for discharge be approved with a UOTHC discharge. The applicant's commander stated that barracks theft would not be tolerated and, if the applicant were convicted by court-martial, he would have a federal conviction on his records.
On 31 January 1984, the separation authority approved separation with a UOTHC discharge. On 13 February 1984, the applicant was separated with a UOTHC discharge for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. He had completed 1 year, 1 month, and 13 days of active military service and he had 1 day of recorded lost time due to being AWOL.
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.
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 was authorized, a UOTHC discharge 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. 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.
2. The applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid trial by court-martial and there is no evidence of any coercion during the discharge process. He has provided no information that would indicate the contrary. Further, the applicant was fully apprised of the ramifications of requesting discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, to include receiving a UOTHC discharge.
3. The Board has taken into consideration the applicant’s contention that he was young at the time that he enlisted. However, he met entrance qualification standards, to include age. Further, the Board found no evidence that he was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligations.
4. The Board considered the applicant’s entire record of service and was convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were correct considering the facts of the case. Theft is a serious offense that adversely affected the quality of the applicant's service and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.
5. The Board congratulates the applicant on his achievements since departing the Army. However, the Board does not grant relief based solely on post service accomplishments.
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
__jlp___ __aao___ __phm___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003084216 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030923 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19840213 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200 C10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A60.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.6000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075509C070403
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 11 June 1984, the approval authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10 and directed that he be separated with a UOTHC discharge in pay grade E-1. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002075509SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20021217TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020941
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, 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. a. On 20 April 1988, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his UOTHC discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001263C070206
The applicant provides: a. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief and to excuse failure to timely file. Ronald E. Blakely ______________________ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20050001263 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20050927 TYPE OF DISCHARGE UOTHC DATE OF DISCHARGE 19840502 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR 635-200 C10 DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION GRANT REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001263C070206
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant provides: a. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief and to excuse failure to timely file.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068593C070402
On 31 January 1983, the approval authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10 and directed that he be separated with a UOTHC discharge in pay grade E-1. The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows that he was separated in absentia on 23 February 1983 under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UOTHC discharge for the good of the service-in lieu of court-martial. On 13 August...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074334C070403
Prior to the period of service under review the applicant served honorably in the Regular Army (RA) from 20 April 1976-22 October 1979 and from 23 October 1979-25 July 1982. On the same date, at Building 1706, Flak Kaserne, Stuttgart, Germany, the applicant sold the undercover military police investigator (MPI) a $20.00 piece of marijuana in the hashish form. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069578C070402
The Board also took into consideration the applicant’s age at the time of his enlistment. The Board took into consideration the applicant's entire record of service and was convinced that both the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were appropriate considering the facts surrounding his discharge. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002069578SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20020813TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016149
The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-4 on 20 June 1979, with prior enlisted service in the U.S. Army Reserve. This DD Form 214 shows the applicant was discharged on 21 June 1984, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Separations), for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. There is no evidence the applicant applied to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090041C070212
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. 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 exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should commence on the date of final action by the ADRB. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052937C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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: Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001052937SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20010830TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGEDISCHARGE...