| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Linda D. Simmons | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable or general under honorable conditions.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was promoted to Specialist Four, E-4 and shortly thereafter transferred to Korea. During a meeting with the new troop commander, he addressed the new commander, who took the applicant's standing up for his rights to be offensive. Afterwards, the commander made his life difficult. His commander accused him of attempting to rob the Noncommissioned Officer's Club and restricted him. He was confined in the commander's office until he signed the discharge packet. He did not have an excellent record but his initial mistakes were the result of immaturity. He realized he could not win in the personality conflict with his commander so he signed the request for discharge. He provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was born on 4 February 1959. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 November 1978. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 19D (Cavalry Scout).
On 19 May 1979, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of wrongfully having in his possession some amount of marijuana and wrongfully using some amount of marijuana. He was sentenced to be reduced to pay grade E-1, to forfeit $279.00 pay, and to be confined at hard labor for 15 days.
The applicant was promoted to Specialist Four, E-4 on 1 August 1980. On or about 28 September 1980, he was reassigned to Korea.
On 20 July 1981, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.
The applicant's discharge packet is not available.
On 7 August 1981, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had completed 2 years, 8 months, and 22 days of creditable active service and had 12 days of lost time.
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. A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.
Army Regulation 635-200 states in pertinent part that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. It is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
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 and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.
2. Without having the discharge packet to consider, the Board presumes that the applicant's commander considered the offense(s) charged and the applicant's overall record of service and determined that a discharge UOTHC was appropriate. The applicant provides no evidence to contraindicate the commander's judgment.
3. 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
__tbr___ __lds___ __jtm ___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003084258 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030501 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19810807 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, ch 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A70.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | Mr. Chun |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063479C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 21 March 1985, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001247C070206
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 06 OCTOBER 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050001247 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. On 23 February 1981, the applicant requested a discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of court-martial. Therefore, he is not entitled to an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001247C070206
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 06 OCTOBER 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050001247 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. The application submitted in this case is dated 27 January 2005. On 23 February 1981, the applicant requested a discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084881C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : That he believes the circumstances involved in his discharge warranted a better discharge. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086024C070212
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. He also acknowledged that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003809C070205
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 October 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060003809 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. There is no evidence in the available records which shows that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitation. The applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061208C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072054C070403
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: There is no evidence in the available records to show 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 | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070004691C071029
Ernestine R. Moya | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Although the applicant’s discharge packet is not available, in the absence of evidence to the contrary it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and that the characterization of his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040002488C070208
The applicant requests that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general discharge (GD). On 13 February 1979, he was discharged from the DEP and he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 71D (Legal Clerk). On 19 November 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.