| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor Jr. | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Terry L. Placek | Member | ||
| Mr. Robert Duecaster | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded and that the narrative reason for discharge be corrected to read convenience of the government.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his discharge is unfairly harsh for the circumstances and should be upgraded. In support of application, he submits three separate self-authored statements and the following documents: award certificates for the Army Good Conduct Medal and Army Achievement Medal; four certificates of training; and six certificates of academic achievement.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He initially entered the Army on 19 August 1995 and was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment on 9 June 1998. On 10 June 1998, he reenlisted for a period of 4 years. He was trained and served in military occupational specialty 11H (Heavy Anti-Armor Weapons Infantryman).
The applicant’s record shows that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was specialist four/E-4 (SP/E-4). It also shows that during his active duty tenure, he earned the following awards: Army Achievement Medal; Army Good Conduct Medal; National Defense Service Medal; Army Service Ribbon; and Overseas Service Ribbon.
The applicant’s record also shows that he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 18 December 1998, for stealing a cell phone valued at $150.00.
On 12 March 1999, while he was serving in Italy, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for making a false official statement, three specifications of breaking restriction, and selling or giving one or more military identification (ID) cards to a civilian. The applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the impact of an UOTHC discharge, and of his rights in connection with the matter.
On 22 March 1999, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, its effects, and the possible effects of receiving an UOTHC discharge, he voluntarily requested an administrative discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by court-martial.
On 29 March 1999, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive an UOTHC discharge and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. On 25 April 1999, the applicant was discharged accordingly after completing a total of 3 years, 7 months, and 12 days of creditable active military service.
On 20 February 2003, the Army Discharge Review Board determined the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable, and it voted to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade and change the narrative reason for his discharge.
The three enclosed self-authored statements submitted by the applicant reveal his interpretation of the facts and circumstances surrounding his breaking restriction and his post service accomplishments.
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 UOTHC is normally considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and it is concluded:
1. The contentions of the applicant have been noted by the Board. However, they are not supported by the evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was charged with the commission of offenses 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. In doing so, he admitted guilt to the stipulated offense(s) under the UCMJ.
3. 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 type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
4. 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.
5. 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
___tlp___ ___rvo __ __rld____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002085872 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/04/24 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1999/04/25 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR^35-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | In Lieu Of Trail By CM |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 689 | 144.7000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085037C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: 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 | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088724C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: The applicant submits no documents in support of his application, but he does claim that cannot get a job and he requests that his overall record of service be considered.
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130016233
Personnel actions indicating the applicants duty status changed from AWOL, to DFR, to apprehension by civil authorities, to present for duty. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant states, in effect, since his discharge he continued his education to achieve a bachelor of science and a master in administration. No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: No Board Vote: Character Change: 0 No Change: 5 Reason Change: 0 No Change: 5 (Board member names available upon request) Board Action...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130006208
The applicant requests to upgrade his characterization of service from under other than honorable to honorable. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 17 November 1999 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: Btry A, PSB, USAFACFS, Fort Sill, OK f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 5 January 1998, 4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 11 months, 23 days (includes 132 days...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085965C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: With his application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), he stated that he served in the Army from 30 September 1992 until 20 July 1998.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010942
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to a general discharge (GD). On 17 June 1998, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and directed he receive a UOTHC discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070575C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Permanent Orders 314-01, Headquarters, 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment dated 10 November 1998 awarded the applicant the AAM. On 9 November 2000, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for assault (striking his wife), communicating a threat (to his wife), and failure to obey an order (violating the commander’s order not...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130005959
Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 March 1998, for a period of 3 years. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. Moreover, records show the applicant's assigned RE Code of 4 is appropriate based on the authority and reason for his discharge.
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 | 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.