| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Mr. Stanley Kelley | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Christopher J. Prosser | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: His ability to serve was impaired by his youth and immaturity. He is very remorseful and knows that his conduct destroyed his military career as well as his marriage. However, since his discharge, he has been a good citizen and has served his community “in the most professional aspect.” He asks that his earlier periods of honorable active service and his post-service conduct be taken into consideration by the Board as it reviews his request.
In support of his application, he submits letters attesting to his post-service demeanor, conduct, sense of civic responsibility, work ethic, spirituality, selfless service, integrity and character.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 July 1973. While he was in initial entry training (IET), he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniformed Code of Military Justice, on 8 November 1973 for being Absent Without Leave (AWOL). On 18 March 1974 he again accepted NJP, this time for leaving his guard post without authority. He completed his IET and was awarded the military occupational specialty of armorer/unit supply specialist. He was subsequently promoted to pay grade E-3.
He immediately reenlisted on 2 July 1975 and was promoted to pay grade E-4. On 12 August 1976 he again accepted NJP, this time for violating a lawful regulation by driving an unregistered and uninsured vehicle. On 23 September 1977 he again accepted NJP, this time for signing an official record with intent to deceive.
He immediately reenlisted on 3 April 1978 and served continuously from that date. On 11 March 1986, the applicant, then in pay grade E-6, accepted NJP once again for losing $2,163.85 of military property through neglect, and for wrongfully soliciting an individual to falsify official military documents. His punishment consisted of a reduction to pay grade E-5 (suspended) and a forfeiture of $500.00. On 13 August 1986, the applicant’s battalion commander vacated the suspension of his reduction to pay grade E-5 because the applicant mistreated a female private subject to his orders by kissing her in the barracks.
On 18 August 1986, the applicant was offered NJP for mistreating a female private subject to his orders by kissing her in the barracks. The applicant declined the NJP and demanded trial by court-martial.
On 19 August 1986, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for mistreating a female private subject to his orders by kissing her in the barracks; for mistreating a different female private subject to his orders by kissing her in the barracks; and for mistreating a third female private subject to his orders by kissing her in the barracks.
On 17 September 1986, additional court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for mistreating a female private subject to his orders by putting his arms around her and attempting to kiss her; for mistreating another female private subject to his orders by putting his hand on her knee and attempting to kiss her; for mistreating another female private subject to his orders by rubbing her knee; for mistreating another female private subject to his orders by unlawfully kissing her; for mistreating another female private subject to his orders by unlawfully kissing her; and for mistreating another female private subject to his orders by unlawfully kissing her.
The applicant’s discharge packet is not contained in his records. However, he evidently requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial for the good of the service, and that request was accepted.
On 29 October 1986, the applicant was discharged UOTHC under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10. He was 33 years old at that time and had a total of over 13 years of active service.
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. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The applicant’s offenses are particularly serious since he used his position of authority to mistreat private soldiers subject to his orders. In a military environment, this type of behavior cannot be tolerated.
2. The applicant did not commit one act of misconduct. He committed nine acts of misconduct. This fact must be carefully considered by the Board.
3. The applicant’s contention that his ability to serve was impaired by his youth and immaturity is not accepted by the Board. The applicant was 33 years old at that time of his discharge and had a total of over 13 years of active service.
4. As for the applicant’s earlier periods of active service, he accepted NJP twice during each enlistment. While this misconduct was not sufficient to warrant characterizing his service as less than honorable, it did tarnish his service.
5. The applicant’s post service conduct has been carefully considered by the Board. In this regard, the applicant has not stated that he is doing more than what would be expected of any citizen of this nation and any member of a community. Such conduct, while commendable, certainly isn’t sufficient to outweigh the seriousness and multiplicity of the misconduct which led to the applicant’s discharge UOTHC.
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
___cjp___ ____sk __ ___jtm___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003086191 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030911 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | A71.00 |
| 2. | A92.19 |
| 3. | A92.21 |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000079C070208
He states that one of the statements was the “second statement” rendered by one of the enlisted women. She indicated that he inspected her room and then started to make small talk and asked her what she had on under the sheet and then began asking more personal questions. The evidence suggests that the investigation was conducted appropriately, that the investigating officer interviewed appropriate individuals, despite the applicant’s argument to the contrary, and that his findings and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511418C070209
Counsel states the applicant did not enter into a relationship while the student was in training but merely continued a relationship with someone already known to him prior to her status as an AIT student. Counsel states the applicant met the female student while he was in Texas. He states not only did the command have a problem with deciding who the rating officials would be and what period the report should cover but they also could not decide whether the report should be a change of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007953
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant's discharge packet is not contained in the available military records. _______ _ x______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002352
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 May 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090002352 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ) submitted by the applicant shows that, on 13 September 2008, he was informed that the battalion commander was considering whether he should be punished under Article 15, UCMJ for sexual contact by kissing PFC S_________ on the lips in violation of Article 120, UCMJ and for orally communicating certain indecent...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060017589
There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge. The applicant contends that the FSM's under other than honorable conditions discharge should be upgraded because he suffered from a mental health disability and that his rank should be restored to specialist/pay grade E-4. There is no evidence and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that shows the FSM suffered from a mental health disability which was the cause of his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062207C070421
The applicant’s counsel appealed his case to the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals contending that the evidence of record was not legally or factually sufficient to support a finding of rape, that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the applicant was not mistaken as to the alleged victim’s lack of consent, the military judge committed prejudicial error when he denied a defense motion to produce a witness whose testimony would have challenged the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082903C070215
A Military Police Report, dated 1 May 2002, states that on 31 March 2002, the applicant, while in his DS Office, did engage in a personal relationship with PVT "M," a female soldier-in-training under his charge, by hugging and kissing her. The imposing commander is not bound by the formal rules of evidence before courts-martial and may consider any matter, including unsworn statements the commander reasonably believed to be relevant to the case. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021028
The applicant requests: * removal of the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) dated 8 August 2003 from his official military personnel file (OMPF) * restoration of his previous date of rank and subsequent promotion to sergeant first class (SFC)/pay grade E-7 2. After telling her that he needed to visit a recruit in Manderson, SD, before going to Sioux Falls, the applicant instead drove for several miles on the secluded White Horse...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060741C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 28 October 1999, a second investigation was conducted by the Military Criminal Investigation Command (CID), Fort Drum, New York, for allegations of committing sodomy by force of another soldier and unlawfully breaking and entering the barracks room of said soldier with the intent to commit sodomy. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08503-00
accused admitted to him that he had kissed Mrs. (Later) the accused apologized for kissing Mrs. (S), but claimed that the kiss was consensual and was initiated by Mrs. (S). kiss on her, kiss . until she raised the accusation that I forced a when in fact it was she that initiated the I also stated to the general that it was I disagree with the finding that a friend of her husband and one (S) ever leave the house ._ QMl (D) based his .