| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Linda D. Simmons | Member | |
| Ms. Marla J. Troup | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he only received two nonjudicial punishments during his enlistment and that he believes these two incidents led to his discharge. He contends that he was neither consulted nor asked what he wanted to do but merely told to sign the papers and leave. In support of his application, he submits two DA Forms 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ) and a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
Having prior service in the U.S. Army Reserve, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 October 1978 for a period of 3 years. He completed One Station Unit Training and was transferred to Germany for duty as an infantryman.
On 13 March 1979, a Notification of Dishonored Checks in the amount of $1,226.53 was sent to the applicant's command from the Army and Air Force Exchange Service in Germany.
On 5 April 1979, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being absent without leave from his place of duty for several hours (number of hours unknown) and failure to repair (two specifications). His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction, and extra duty.
On 20 April 1979, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for leaving his guard post without authority, disobeying a lawful order of his superior noncommissioned officer, and using disrespectful language towards a superior noncommissioned officer. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction, and extra duty.
The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's discharge are not contained in the available records. However, the applicant's DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 1 June 1979 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33b(2).
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14, paragraph 14-33b(2), provided for
discharge due to patterns of misconduct due to an established pattern for shirking. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that
any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.
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. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s separation was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation appear to be appropriate.
3. The Board reviewed the available records which included two nonjudicial punishments and a notification of dishonored checks in the amount of $1,226.53 and determined that the applicant's quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge.
4. The applicant failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.
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
RJW____ LDS____ MJT_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003088354 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20031028 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19790601 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, PARAGRAPH 14-33B(2) |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Misconduct due to an established pattern for shirking |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0200 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009061
On 9 January 1980, the company commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action to effect his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Separations), chapter 14 (Misconduct), paragraph 14-33b(1), based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. On 29 January 1980, the battalion commander provided the separation authority in the applicant's case with a summary of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009284
The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable or general discharge. The applicant's military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 January 1979 for a period of 3 years and for assignment with the 24th Infantry Division. On 1 May 1980, the applicant acknowledged that he had been advised by his consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to accomplish his separation for misconduct...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075374C070403
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010061
On 12 February 1981, the unit commander notified the applicant of pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-33b(1), by reason of misconduct-frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged for acts or patterns of misconduct. There is no evidence of record...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070016373
The applicant requests that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general or honorable discharge. The separation authority approved the separation and directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33b(1) for misconduct - frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities with issuance of an UOTHC Discharge Certificate. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026933
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. His service record shows he received five Article 15s and several adverse counseling statements.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018514
The applicant requests that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. 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 shows the applicant had three Article 15's and he was separated with an under other than honorable conditions discharge for misconduct - an established pattern for shirking.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007902
He served in Korea from May 1974 to May 1975 and he was honorably released from active duty on 12 September 1975. c. A properly-constituted DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 17 August 1979 under the provisions of paragraph 14-33b of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), for misconduct (Frequent Involvement in Incidents of a Discreditable Nature with Civil or Military Authorities) in the rank/grade of private/E-1 with an under other than honorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080009639
The applicants military service records contain a DD Form 293 (Application for Review of Discharge or Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated 28 July 1981, that shows he requested upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. The applicants record of service shows completion of only 1 year, 7 months, and 21 days of his 3-year enlistment. Thus, the evidence of record shows that the applicants record of service during the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002896
The applicant's unit commander recommended he be considered by a board of officers for separation from the service under the provisions of paragraph 14-33b of Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities and an established pattern of shirking. On 14 June 1979, the applicant was informed that a board of officers had been directed to investigate his case to determine whether he should be discharged from the service...