| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Ms. Linda M. Barker | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, he requests that his discharge be upgraded in order to allow him to receive veterans medical benefits. He states that he was asthmatic at the time he entered the Army, and his recruiter failed to include this in his enlistment paperwork. He claims that this condition was the reason he went absent without leave (AWOL). He further states that he loved being in the Army and he is now disabled and suffers from disabling medical conditions that require medical care.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 16 February 1979, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. A Report of Medical Examination (SF 88) on file in his record confirms that he underwent an enlistment physical examination on 16 February 1979, and he was found medically qualified for enlistment by proper medical authority.
The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) shows that he successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and he was awarded military occupational specialty 64C (Motor Transport Operator). It also confirms that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private/E-1. His record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition, and it verifies that with the exception of a Marksman Marksmanship Badge (Rifle), he earned no awards or decorations while serving on active duty.
The applicant’s record does contain an extensive AWOL related disciplinary history that began while he was in AIT. On 16 May 1979, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being AWOL from on or about 6 to on or about 8 May 1979. In addition, the record shows that he was also AWOL on the following three other occasions: from on or about 6 June to on or about 7 September 1979; from on or about 2 to on or about 3 October 1979; and finally from on or about 11 October 1979 to on or about 21 February 1980.
The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge processing are not in the record. However, there is a separation document (DD Form 214) on file that confirms that on 23 April 1980, he received an UOTHC discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial. The separation document also verifies that at the time of his discharge, he had completed 6 months and 16 days of creditable active military service and he had accrued 228 days of time lost due to AWOL.
There is no indication that the applicant requested an upgrade of his discharge from the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15 year stature 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 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.
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 evidence of record confirms that the applicant received an enlistment physical examination that revealed no disqualifying medical condition, and he was cleared for enlistment by proper medical authority. Thus, the Board finds insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s contention that he suffered from a disabling medical condition that existed prior to his enlistment and that impaired his ability to serve.
2. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge processing. However, it does confirm he was charged with an offense that was punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. It also contains a properly constituted DD Form 214, which identifies the reason and characterization of the applicant’s discharge. Therefore, the Board presumes Government regularity in the discharge process.
3. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of court-martial. In connection with such a discharge, he was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. Procedurally, he was required to consult with defense counsel, and to voluntarily request separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, he admitted guilt to the stipulated offense under the UCMJ.
4. In the absence of information to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, the Board finds that the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects the overall quality of his relatively short and undistinguished record of service. Thus, while empathetic with his current medical condition, the Board finds this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to his discharge at this time.
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
__rjw ___ _bje_____ ___lb ___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003084527 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/04/08 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1980/04/23 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | In Lieu of Court-Martial |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013207
He further stated that he suffered a back injury during AIT at Fort Gordon, Georgia, which should have warranted his receiving a medical discharge instead of an UOTHC discharge; however, the Army did not seem to care about him or his family. The separation documents regulation stipulates that the separation authority may authorize a GD or HD to members separated under the provisions of Chapter 10 if it is supported by the members overall record of service; however, an UOTHC discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003152C070208
The applicant submitted a statement with his discharge request. On 28 March 1980, the applicant was discharged accordingly. However, there is no evidence of record to support this claim.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012081C071029
The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant upon his discharge confirms he completed 4 months and 18 days of creditable active military service, and had accrued 64 days of time lost due to AWOL. On 10 March 1987, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge. The evidence of record further shows that after being AWOL for 64 days, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040006455C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of his under other then honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge (HD). On 24 June 1980, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive an UOTHC 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 at any time after the charges...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009262
The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge and after consulting with defense counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. He also indicated that he understood he could face substantial prejudice in civilian life because of his UOTHC discharge and subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge in order to avoid a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002083254C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010956
On 23 November 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant's request and directed his discharge UOTHC. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate. His record documents no acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority at the time of his discharge and it does not support an upgrade to an honorable or a general discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014659
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 30 May 1980, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service, and directed the applicant receive an UOTHC discharge. The record also shows the applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in his receiving a punitive discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100024370
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). After receiving legal counsel, the FSM voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. The FSM's record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement and does not support the issue of an honorable or general discharge by the separation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010550C070208
He claims his unit commander gave two other Soldiers and himself one week off from duty because they had previously taken on details and other duties to help unit proficiency. On 13 April 1981, the applicant was separated with an UOTHC discharge. The applicant’s contentions that the UOTHC discharge was improper because his new unit commander was not properly informed that he was on authorized leave instead of being AWOL, and because he was never informed of the effects of an UOTHC...