RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 20 September 2007
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070007414
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.
Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano
Director
Mr. Michael L. Engle
Analyst
The following members, a quorum, were present:
Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann
Chairperson
Mr. Dean A. Camarella
Member
Mr. Qawiy A. Sabree
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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.
2. The applicant states that he feels his discharge should be upgraded so that he will be eligible for employment in the job field in which he is interested and qualified. He also states that he would like to have his discharged changed so that he will be able to receive benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
3. The applicant provides no additional documentation.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. On 9 March 2004, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years. He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 88M1O (Motor Transport Operator).
2. On 6 April 2005, charges were preferred against the applicant for two violations of Article 86, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), being absence without leave (AWOL) during the period from on or about 15 November 2004 to 19 February 2005 (96 days); and from 28 February to on or about
1 March 2005 (1 day); and for violation of Article 90, willfully disobeying a lawful order from a superior commissioned officer.
3. On 14 April 2005, 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 him. Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
4. In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated 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. He further acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request was approved, he could 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.
5. On 18 April 2005, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be issued an Under Other Than Honorable conditions Discharge. On 29 April 2005, the applicant was discharged accordingly. He had completed 10 months and 13 days of creditable active military service and had accrued 97 days of time lost due to AWOL.
6. On 28 July 2006, 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 90, for willfully disobeying a lawful order of a superior commissioned officer, other than in a time of war, is a punitive discharge and confinement for 5 years.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicants administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
3. 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 the aforementioned requirement.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
_QAS __ _DAC___ __JCR___ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
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.
_Jeffrey C. Redmann___
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
CASE ID
AR
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED
20070920
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.
144
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140005862
The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to general under honorable conditions. On 15 May 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant contends that his undesirable discharge should be upgraded to general under honorable conditions because he was emotionally distressed and used drugs and alcohol wile in the military.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002448
On 11 May 1979, the applicant was discharged accordingly. 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 confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of offenses punishable by a punitive discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014261
The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to an honorable discharge (HD). Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an HD is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for upgrade of his UOTHC discharge to an HD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709513
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. 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: 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011625
This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. On 7 January 1987, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be issued an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. There is no indication that the applicant applied to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027024
On 4 October 1971, 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 him. On 18 October 1971, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate....
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709936
On 28 April 1972 the first intermediate level commander recommended approval of the applicant's request and that the applicant be issued a UD citing the applicant's failure to perform his duties and the substantiating statements of his supervisors. 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 are preferred, submit a request...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709936C070209
On 28 April 1972 the first intermediate level commander recommended approval of the applicant's request and that the applicant be issued a UD citing the applicant's failure to perform his duties and the substantiating statements of his supervisors. 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 are preferred, submit a request...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709513C070209
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). 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027495
The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged on 15 September 1981 in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with service characterized as under other than honorable conditions. The applicant's records do not contain any evidence that shows he was court-martialed. The applicant contends his discharge under other than honorable conditions should be...