| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Lana E. McGlynn | Member | |
| Mr. Larry C. Bergquist | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: The applicant makes no additional statement and provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 March 1998. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11C (Indirect Fire Infantryman).
The applicant departed absent without leave (AWOL) on 14 December 1999. He was apprehended by military authorities at his home on 15 February 2000.
On 22 February 2000, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with being AWOL from on or about 14 December 1999 to on or about 15 February 2000.
On 22 February 2000, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 23 February 2000, the applicant was placed on involuntary excess leave until 17 May 2001.
On an unknown date, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request and directed the applicant receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions.
On 17 May 2001, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge under other than honorable conditions, 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 3 years and 11 days of creditable active service and had 63 days of lost time.
On 26 February 2003, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) voted, in a unanimous decision, to deny the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge. He made no statement and provided no supporting evidence with his application to the ADRB.
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 under other than honorable conditions 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.
2. The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.
3. In the absence of evidence to the contrary and considering the applicant was AWOL for an extended period of time, it appears that his discharge under other than honorable conditions was appropriate. It appears that an upgrade of his discharge to neither fully honorable nor to general under honorable conditions is warranted.
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
__fne___ __lem___ __lcb___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003085966 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030506 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 20010517 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, ch 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A70.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | Mr. Chun |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066427C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072943C070403
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 18 February 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request to upgrade his 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 have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067223C070402
On 12 September 2000, the applicant’s DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows that he was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial with a 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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service...
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 | CY2002 | 2002070440C070402
The Board considered the following evidence: APPLICANT REQUESTS : That the date of discharge be changed from 19 December 2001 to 21 September 2000. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073470C070403
The Board considered the following evidence: On 4 April 1989, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. However, the applicant's contentions are not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080932C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 30 December 1996, the applicant's commander requested that an elimination packet be prepared on the applicant based on his wrongful use of cocaine and numerous counseling statements. The applicant was discharged on 26 February 2002.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060757C070421
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: 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 a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
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 | CY2003 | 2003089944C070403
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: He was given an RE code of 4 and a separation code of KFS (voluntary discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-20, chapter 10).