RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 20 March 2007
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060012670
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.
Mr. Gerard W. Schwartz
Acting Director
Mr. Michael L. Engle
Analyst
The following members, a quorum, were present:
Ms. Kathleen A. Newman
Chairperson
Mr. David K. Haasenritter
Member
Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas
Member
The Board considered the following evidence:
Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.
Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to general.
2. The applicant states that he has grown and matured a lot over the past
18 years and would like a chance to return to the military and serve the way he should have done the first time. He further states that unless his discharge is upgraded he cannot enlist in the Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS).
3. The applicant provides a copy of his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214), a police record check, a security clearance application, authorizations for release of information, and six letters of support from employers, co-workers, clergy, and friends.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. On 13 February 1987, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years. He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 76V1O (Material Storage and Handling Specialist).
2. On 17 March 1988, charges were preferred under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for violation of Article 86 for being absent without leave on four occasions between 26 October 1987 and 14 March 1988, totaling 133 days of lost time.
3. On 17 March 1988, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised that the government had not received the necessary documentation and/or records with which to obtain a conviction by a court-martial. This was not due to any fault of the government but merely to the time required to request and mail the documents and records. Further, he was advised by his military counsel that he could not completely advise him without these records. The applicant indicated that he understood and waived all defenses that may become known had his defense counsel been able to review his records. The applicant knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily declared that he had been AWOL as charged, for administrative purposes only so that he may be processed out of the United States Army, and receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge.
4. The applicants request for discharge was forwarded through his chain of command with recommendations for approval; however, the final approval documentation is not available for review.
5. On 11 May 1988, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He had completed a total of 10 months and 18 days of creditable active military service and accrued 133 days of time lost due to AWOL.
6. On 9 November 1993, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge.
7. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) 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 trail by court-martial. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
8. Under the UCMJ, the maximum punishment allowed for violation of Article 86, for AWOL of more than 30 days is a dishonorable discharge and confinement for 1 year.
9. The letters of support provided by the applicant describe him as a hard working individual who has been an excellent worker, husband, and father since leaving the military. His employers commend his work and recommend that he be permitted to enlist in the ARNGUS.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The evidence of record indicates the applicant had committed an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. After consulting with defense counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. All requirements of law and regulation were met. The rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.
2. The type of discharge and reason therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
3. The applicants good post-service conduct is noted. However, it does not sufficiently mitigate his repeated and excessive acts of indiscipline during his military service.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__DKH__ __LMD __ __KAN __ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
__Kathleen A. Newman____
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
CASE ID
AR20060012670
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED
20070327
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE
19720829
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR .635-200 .ch 10. . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.
144.7000
2.
100.0900
3.
4.
5.
6.
ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | AR1999023747
A-2: Counsel Issues: NONE B-l: Other Documents: NONE PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW (CONTINUED) It also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge. PART VII - BOARD ACTIONSECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified Mr. ADRIANCE Case Reviewing Official PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATIONSECTION A - DIRECTIVE NONE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015659
On 26 May 1988, the applicant consulted with 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to her. Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In her...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080002357
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 17 February 1988, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions. On 19 June 1990, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicants request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060017049
He was ordered to active duty for training on 27 October 1987. On 15 October 1990, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060006958C070205
The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). On 14 June 1988, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that 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 its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012523
The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded. On 11 September 1989, the separation authority directed that the applicant be separated under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service and that he receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The evidence of record shows that the applicant voluntarily requested and accepted a discharge in lieu of court-martial for having...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019194
The applicant's request for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge was carefully considered; however, there is insufficient evidence to support his request. Based on his record of indiscipline, including his bar to reenlistment and 7 months and 18 days of time lost, due to being AWOL and in confinement, his service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. _______ _ _x _______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120000899
The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge. He was discharged on 11 March 1988, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, with a UOTHC discharge. _______ _ __x_____ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009680
BOARD DATE: 29 November 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120009680 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. It also shows he accrued 78 days of lost time and that he was separated 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, with his service characterized as under other than honorable conditions. His service prior to his court-martial charges was noted; however, based...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070007924
In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge against him, or to a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. On 2 November 1989, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be issued an Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. There is no indication that the applicant...