| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. William D. Powers | Member | ||
| Ms. Linda M. Barker | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 17 September 1998, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. The record also confirms that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private/E-2 (PV2), and that during his active duty tenure he earned no individual military awards or decorations. In addition, his record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.
The applicant’s disciplinary history includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on 6 December 1999, for his incapacitation for the proper performance of his duties due to the wrongful previous indulgence in intoxicating liquor or drugs. The resultant punishment included a suspended reduction to private/E-1 (PV1).
On 1 March 2000, the suspended reduction imposed by the 6 December 1999 NJP was vacated due to the applicant’s failure to go to his prescribed place of duty on 8 February 2000.
On 10 May 2000, the applicant departed absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit at Fort Campbell, Kentucky and he remained away until returning to military control on 22 June 2000. Upon his return, the applicant was charged with four specifications of AWOL and failure to report, two specifications of the wrongful use of valium and ecstasy, one specification of disrespect to a noncommissioned officer (NCO), two specifications of breaking restriction and possession of alcohol while under the legal drinking age.
On 1 July 2000, the applicant consulted legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of an UOTHC discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him. Subsequent to this counseling, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In his request for discharge, the applicant acknowledged his understanding that he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.
The appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, and directed that he receive an UOTHC discharge. On
31 August 2000, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on the date of his separation confirms that he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial. This document also confirms that at the time of his discharge the applicant had completed 1 year, 7 months, and 28 days of creditable active military service, and that he had accrued 75 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.
On 29 January 2003, the Army Discharge Review Board found the applicant’s discharge was both proper and equitable, and it denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade.
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 shows the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge. The Board notes that, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.
2. 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 and that the character of his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service. Therefore, the Board concludes that the requested relief is not warranted.
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__ __WDP _ __ LMB__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003085037 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/03/04 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 2000/08/31 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200 C10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | In Lieu of Court Martial |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 360 | 144.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002228C070206
Carmen Duncan | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 19 December 2003, the ADRB considered the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge. The applicant's request to have his UOTHC upgraded and the supporting documents he submitted were carefully considered.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007549
On 18 January 2001, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he receive a UOTHC discharge. The regulation does allow the issue of a GD, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge (HD) if the separation authority determines it is warranted based on the member's overall record of service; however, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate for members separated under this provision of the regulation. Army Regulation 635-5-1...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010013
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 November 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070010013 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. In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charges against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000233C070206
LaVerne M. Douglas | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 5 December 2001 the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050010952
The applicant’s record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 21 May 1999. In his request for discharge, he indicated that he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge(s) against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. By regulation, the RE-4 code assigned the applicant was the proper code to assign members separating under the provisions of chapter...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003037C070208
Jonathon K. Rost | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040008390C070208
Carol A. Kornhoff | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 24 November 1999, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive an UOTHC discharge. On 28 April 2000, the applicant was discharged accordingly.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003540
Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. The applicant's contentions that his record should be corrected to show he was separated while in an ELS, that his service was described as uncharacterized, and that he be issued an RE-3 code because he had been coerced into requesting discharge and that he can be rehabilitated was carefully considered. ...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130000679
Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 18 December 2000 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, AR 635-200, Chapter 10, KFS, RE-4 e. Unit of assignment: 1st AG Replacement Det, Camp Coiner, Korea f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 29 September 1996, 4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 11 months, 25 days h. Total Service: 7 years, 2 months, 27 days i. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The record shows the...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130015875
Presiding Officer I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case. The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general, under honorable conditions and a change to the narrative reason for discharge. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 11 January 2002 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: In Lieu of Trial...