| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Gale J. Thomas | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy, Jr. | Member |
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show he was discharged under honorable conditions.
2. The applicant states that he was told by a Judge Advocate General (JAG) officer in Florida that his discharge should have been a general.
3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) in support of his request.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. On 4 September 1986, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of
3 years.
2. On 2 February 1988, at Fort Knox Kentucky, his commander preferred court-martial charges against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 24 June 1987 to 1 February 1988.
3. On 12 February 1988, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service, under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. He acknowledged that he was guilty of the charge against him, and that he understood the effects of receiving an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.
4. On 12 February 1988, the appropriate separation authority approved his request and directed his reduction to pay grade E-1, and the issuance of a UOTHC discharge.
5. On 11 March 1988, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial, with an UOTHC discharge. His DD Form 214 indicates he had 11 months and 1 day of active service, and 217 days of lost time.
6. On 21 May 2003, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge
7. 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 under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, with no indication of procedural error which would tend to jeopardize his rights. The applicant voluntarily requested separation under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial.
2. There is no evidence to show that the applicant’s discharge should have been general, under honorable conditions. The applicant was processed out of the Army at Fort Knox, Kentucky, and advised by legal counsel of his rights and the possible effects of an UOTHC discharge. There is no evidence of the applicant having received legal advice from a JAG officer in Tampa Bay, Florida.
3. The evidence of record shows the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with a punitive discharge. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__LLS___ __LE ___ __TEO __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003091540 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20040325 |
| 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. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065910C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 9 February 2001, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, with a UOTHC discharge, under the above-cited regulation. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service), then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067163C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge. On 26 June 1999, the applicant was discharged with an UOTHC discharge under the above cited regulation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061591C070421
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-martial. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063395C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 25 March 1978, the applicant’s unit commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge with a UOTHC discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001143
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 16 September 2005, the Army Discharge Review Board determined he had been properly discharged and denied his request for a change in the type and nature of his discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC was considered appropriate at the time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064363C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against them or of a lesser included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and they must indicate that they have been briefed and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710278
Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for AWOL from 22 November 1978 to 9 January 1980. On 15 January 1980 the appropriate authority approved his request and directed that he be discharged UOTHC. He was discharged UOTHC on 27 March 1980 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710278C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: The applicant was ordered to Active Duty on 5 June 1978 as an enlisted man in an Army Reserve status due to unsatisfactory performance in the Reserve. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081273C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against them or of a lesser included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and they must indicate that they have been briefed and understand the consequences of such a request as...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089505C070403
There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge under that board's 15-year statute of limitations. The evidence also indicates that the applicant's assigned RE-code of RE-4 was appropriate at the time of separation and that it is still appropriate. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it would not be in the interest of...