| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Yvonne J. Foskey | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | ||
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he would like to have his discharge upgraded.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 23 February 1977, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. His Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) shows that he successfully completed basic training at Fort Dix, New Jersey and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Benning, Georgia. Upon completion of AIT, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).
The applicant’s record also confirms that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private/E-1 (PVT), and it documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.
On 26 July 1978, a court-martial charge sheet (DD Form 458) was prepared preferring a court-martial charge against the applicant for being AWOL from on or about 9 July 1977 to on or about 25 July 1978.
On 28 July 1978, the applicant consulted legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of an UD discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him. Subsequent to this counseling, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
In his request for discharge, the applicant acknowledged his understanding that he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.
On 10 August 1978, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge, and directed that he be separated for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, and that he be given an UD discharge. On 7 September 1978, the applicant was discharged accordingly.
The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on the date of his separation shows that he received a UD discharge, under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of conduct triable by court-martial. It shows that at the time of his separation he had completed a total of 5 months and 23 days of creditable military service, and had accrued 382 days of time lost due to AWOL.
On 9 November 1983, the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Boards (ADRB) for an upgrade to his discharge. On 24 May 1984, the ADRB found both the characterization and reason for the applicant’s discharge to be proper and equitable, and it voted to deny the applicant’s request.
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 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 court-marital. A discharge under the other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. However at the time of the applicant’s discharge, issuance of an UD was authorized.
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 is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, it finds that the character of the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service. Therefore, the Board concludes that an upgrade to his discharge is not warranted at this time.
2. 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 request.
3. 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
__FE__ ___KH__ ___MM_ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607567C070209
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any) APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD). The applicants request was made only after he had been advised, by his appointed military counsel, of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial; the maximum...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009537
The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). On 26 April 1978, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed he be discharged in the lowest enlisted grade under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with a UOTHC discharge. Although an honorable discharge (HD) or general discharge (GD) is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018229
On 25 January 1978, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Since the applicant's brief record of service included one NJP and 80 days of lost time, his record of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. His record of service isn't sufficient to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012942
The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded. The applicant's military personnel records show he enlisted and entered active duty on 13 June 1977. 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 | CY2010 | 20100023637
The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded. His chain of command recommended that his request for discharge be denied and that he be tried by court-martial; however, the appropriate authority (a brigadier general) approved his request for discharge on 4 December 1978 and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014865
The applicant requests, in effect, that the upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD) to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD), under the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) be affirmed. On 13 July 1972, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), after careful consideration of the applicant's military records and all other available evidence, determined that he had been properly and equitably discharged and it voted to deny his request for a change to the characterization of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027142
The applicant requests his discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). On 30 August 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he receive a UD. Notwithstanding the initial upgrade of his discharge under the SDRP based on his service in the RVN, it is clear the 1978 determination of the ADRB not to affirm this upgrade action under the uniform discharge review standards established in DOD Directive 1332-28 was the correct action...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008795
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). Although an HD or a general discharge (GD) is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005310C070205
The appropriate authority (a major general) approved his request on 23 March 1978 and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the Army Board for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711615
The applicant’s request was made only after he had been advised, by his appointed military counsel, of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial; the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ; of the possible effects of a UD if the request were approved; and of the procedures and rights available to him. On 19 May 1978 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge and found that the discharge process was...