IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 20 July 2010
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090021652
THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:
1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).
2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests his 1994 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions.
2. The applicant states his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 3 years of service. He states a Soldier might receive this kind of discharge if convicted by a civilian court or engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving many minor offenses which he contends he did not.
3. The applicant notes this discharge has had an adverse impact on his civilian life, that clemency is warranted because of his exemplary post-service achievements, and he now knows he could have reenlisted with a waiver.
4. The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of his request.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. Records available to the Board indicate the applicant enlisted and entered active duty in the Regular Army on 12 July 1991. He successfully completed training, was assigned to a signal battalion in Germany, and was ultimately promoted to rank of specialist/E-4.
2. In January 1994 while still serving in Germany, the applicant was charged with conspiring with two other Soldiers to commit fraud by submitting a false claim against the government, making a false claim against the government in the amount of $1650.00, and making a false statement. The two other Soldiers involved were both privates first class who were the applicant's roommates.
3. Documents associated with the applicant's administrative separation were not in records available to the Board. However, on 28 April 1994 the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
4. The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was credited with 2 years, 9 months, and 17 days of active Federal service.
5. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial at any time after the charges were preferred. At that time, an under other than honorable conditions discharge was normally considered appropriate.
6. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier's separation specifically allows such characterization.
7. In November 2008, the applicant's request to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge was denied.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge. He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.
2. The applicant's argument that his discharge was based on an isolated incident is acknowledged. However, the severity of the misconduct, the involvement of Soldier's junior to him, and the fact he would have voluntarily requested discharge in order to avoid being court-martialed, all support a conclusion his discharge was appropriate and warranted.
3. Although the applicant's separation action is not available to the Board, the applicant would have voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial and acknowledged guilt of the charges against him. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, regularity is presumed and the applicant provided no evidence indicating his administrative separation was not accomplished in compliance with applicable regulatory guidance or that there were any procedural errors that jeopardized his rights.
4. While the applicant's post-service accomplishment may be noteworthy, they are not supported by any evidence of record and would likely not be sufficiently mitigating to warrant the relief requested.
5. 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.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__X_____ __X____ __X_____ 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.
__________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.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090021652
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090021652
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060012203
Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. It is 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. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE:...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110022828
The applicant requests his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 states 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021922
On 4 April 1995, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant submitted a request for resignation for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-120, chapter 5, in lieu of trial by court-martial. At the time, Army Regulation 635-120 served as the authority for the resignation of officers for the good of the service. It states an officer may submit a resignation for the good of the service when court-martial charges have been preferred against the officer...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013860
In summary, she stated: * she went AWOL because she and her husband were promised to be stationed together which never happened * her husband was chaptered out of the Army * she married her husband to be with him * she left to be with him 5. On 22 August 1994, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge and directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. There is no evidence that shows the applicant applied to the Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002175
The applicant states: * his discharge was unjust because it was based on one incident * his total honorable military service was not considered during his separation proceedings * he made some bad decisions, which caused him to be separated from active duty * his loss of the MGIB was unfair considering he served honorably until his misconduct 3. On 26 June 1994, the applicant was discharged with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Based on his record of indiscipline which...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016545
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. Although the applicant contends that his DUI in 1993 was an isolated incident, the evidence of record shows that nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him in October 1992 for drunk driving. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110018937
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-2, on 9 July 1991, for 4 years.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002350
The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate. The applicant's request for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge was carefully considered; however, there was insufficient evidence to support his request.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013055
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. 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 a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. Army policy states that although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, an UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006253
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 10 October 2003, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge and determined he had been properly and equitably discharged. _______ _ __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.