| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Antoinette Farley | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Robert Duecaster | Member | ||
| Ms. Linda D. Simmons | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In essence, that he volunteered for the service to broaden his horizon, to take advantage of the educational and other benefits the service had to offer. Unfortunately, he lacked the maturity and discipline to achieve his goals. If he knew then what he knows now, he would feel a lot more content with his past tenure in the service.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 August 1981, for 3 years. He completed basic training and advanced individual training in Military Occupational Speciality (MOS) 36K00 (Tactical Wire Operations Specialist). On 30 December 1981, he was transferred to Germany for duty.
On 29 September 1982, he received his first nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for willfully disobeying a lawful order from his superior non-commissioned officer. His punishments included reduction to pay grade E-2, extra duty and restriction for 14 days.
On 27 January 1983, he received a second NJP, for willfully disobeying a lawful order from his superior non-commissioned officer to unlock the door to his room. His punishments included forfeiture of $150.00 pay per month for one month, extra duty and restriction for 14 days.
On 17 July 1983, the applicant was confined to U.S. Army Confinement Facility, Mannheim, Germany.
On 9 September 1983, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of
willfully disobeying a lawful command of an officer, resisting apprehension, assaulting a military policeman, being drunk and disorderly, using offensive language towards non-commissioned and commissioned officers and possessing hashish. His approved sentence included a bad conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for 4 months and forfeiture of $382.00 pay per month for 3 months. The service member’s chain of command recommended approval of the applicant’s request to go home pending completion of appellate review.
On 9 November 1983, the applicant received a medical and mental status evaluation and was cleared for separation.
On 17 November 1983, the commander approved the applicant’s request and directed that the applicant be placed in a voluntary excess leave status, effective 18 November 1983.
On 12 December 1985, as the result of a decision by the Army Court of Military Review, the applicant was recalled to duty for a rehearing at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
On 18 December 1985, the applicant, consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial. He acknowledged the maximum allowable punishment and the possible effects of an UOTHC discharge. The applicant voluntarily requested to be discharged for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. The applicant’s chain of command recommended approval of the request for discharge.
On 16 January 1986, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant be issued a UOTHC certificate.
On 25 February 1986, the applicant was separated in pay grade E-1 with a UOTHC Discharge Certificate, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He had completed 4 years, 6 months and 15 days of creditable active service. He also accrued 68 days of excess leave and had been retained
564 days pending appellate review. The highest rank he attained was private first class (E-3).
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 court-martial charges have been preferred. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
On 3 January 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded 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. The evidence of record shows the applicant was charged with the commission of multiple offenses punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge. After consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial. The separation was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. The discharge appropriately characterizes the applicant’s record of service.
2. The applicant's contention that he lacked the maturity and discipline to achieve his goals is not convincing to the Board. The Board found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service. Neither of these factors overcome the serious nature of the offenses, therefore they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.
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
___JH _ __RD___ ___LDS__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003088031 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003.11.20 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1986.01.16 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 CH 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A40.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | A110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021551
He fully understood the nature of the administrative action initiated against him, but stated it was of little consequence to him. An Army Council of Review Boards Case Report and Directive, dated 25 February 1991, contains a summary of the facts and circumstances of his discharge showing, in part: (1) On 28 March 1983, he was charged with: * failure to go on 22 March 1983 * disobeying a lawful order on 4, 15, 16, 21, and 24 March 1983 * being disorderly in command on 4 and 24 March...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014261
The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to an honorable discharge (HD). Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an HD is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for upgrade of his UOTHC discharge to an HD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011971
He also indicated he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charges against him or of lesser-included offenses that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a dishonorable discharge. On 29 September 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and directed that he receive an under other than honorable conditions...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060583C070421
On 7 October 1983, the applicant was advised that he was being recommended for separation from the Army under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c, chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for commission of a serious offense. Accordingly, on 16 December 1983, the applicant was discharged from the Army after completing 1 year, 2 months, and 27 days of active military service and accruing 655 days of lost time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000004
The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017349
Orders 053-402, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Center, Fort Dix, on 22 February 1983, ordering his discharge from the Army effective 22 February 1983. c. A DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) that shows he was discharged on 22 February 1983 under the under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of court-martial, with a character of service of under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001824
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 15 March 1983, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that the applicant be issued a UOTHC discharge. Chapter 10 provides for members who have committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge to submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial anytime after...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000944
On 30 November 1982, he consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10 due to charges being preferred against him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002448
On 11 May 1979, the applicant was discharged accordingly. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of offenses punishable by a punitive discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020941
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. a. On 20 April 1988, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his UOTHC discharge.