| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Margaret V. Thompson | Member | |
| Mr. Eric N. Anderson | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by upgrading his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that severe family problems he was experiencing at the time impacted his ability to serve, and was the reason he departed his unit absent without leave (AWOL). He also indicates that his discharge was unjust because upon his return to military control he never received proper counseling or all the information necessary to make an informed decision. He claims that he is now serving honorably in the United States Navy Reserve (USNR). He also states that he has taken and passed the examination to become a New York City Police Officer, but his discharge is preventing him from obtaining this position. The applicant’s full argument is included in his enclosed three page letter to the Board.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case (AR2002072971) on 5 September 2002.
The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition during his tenure on active duty. However, it does reveal a disciplinary history that includes his being AWOL on 8 June 1982, and his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on 15 June 1982, for disobeying a lawful order.
A court-martial charge was preferred against the applicant for his period of AWOL from 5 September 1982 through 24 October 1982. On 27 October 1982, after consulting with legal counsel and being advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, and of the possible effects of an UOTHC discharge, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of court-martial.
On 4 November 1982, the separtion authority approved the applicant’s discharge request and directed that he be discharged UOTHC and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. On 18 November 1982, the applicant was discharged accordingly.
The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant on
18 November 1982, confirms that he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu of court-martial. It also shows that at the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 11 months and 2 days of creditable active military service and he had accrued 49 days of AWOL.
On 5 September 2002, this Board considered and denied the applicant’s original request for an upgrade to this discharge. It found that the family problems experienced by the applicant were not sufficiently mitigating to support the requested relief. It further determined that the applicant had voluntarily elected to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial, and that his discharge was processed in accordance with the applicable regulation.
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 Board notes the applicant’s contention that his discharge should be upgraded because the family problems he experienced at the time seriously impaired his ability to serve, and because he wishes to pursue a position in law enforcement. However, the Board finds these factors are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.
2. The Board also considered the applicant’s claim that he was never properly counseled on the seriousness of his discharge or given the information necessary to make an informed decision. However, it finds insufficient evidence to support these assertions.
3. The evidence of record shows the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. The Board notes that, after consulting with defense counsel and being advised of the consequences of an UOTHC discharge, the applicant voluntarily requested separation in lieu of trial by court-martial.
4. Lacking evidence to the contrary, 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 undistinguished record of service. Thus, the Board concludes that a discharge upgrade is not warranted in this case.
5. 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.
6. In the opinion of the Board, the overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.
7. 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
__MVT__ ___FE__ ___ENA__ DENY APPLICATION
Carl W. S. Chun
| CASE ID | AR2003088334 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | AR2002072971 |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/07/ |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1982/11/18 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | In lieu of court-martial |
| BOARD DECISION | Deny |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004106658C070208
Brenda K. Koch | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded. On 1 September 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) voted to deny the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge after concluding that his discharge was proper and equitable.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012931
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). It further shows she was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) and that the reason for her discharge was for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial; and that she received a UOTHC discharge. Therefore, her overall record of service did not support the issue of an HD or GD by the separation authority at the time...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072971C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140009899
The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. Following consultation with legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, at the time of his discharge, there is no...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011468
X The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 9 September 1982, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he receive an UOTHC discharge. There is no evidence showing that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade to his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070001965C071029
On 23 February 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge, and directed he receive an UOTHC discharge. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. The evidence of record further shows the applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in his receiving a punitive discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065178C070421
Accordingly, on 2 November 1984, the applicant was discharged from the Army after completing 5 years, 3 months, and 23 days of creditable military service and accruing 293 days of lost time. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068466C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he began using heroin while in the military and "was immediately addicted to this drug." On 30 January 2002 the Army Discharge Review Board unanimously denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052937C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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: Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001052937SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20010830TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGEDISCHARGE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076226C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He further states that he did not want to enlist at the time but had no choice under the circumstances. He also states that he was ill-prepared mentally to be in the Army and did not receive the medical assistance he needed at the time to deal with what he considered a miserable and depressing environment.