Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020132
Original file (20110020132.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  19 April 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110020132 


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 reconsideration of his previous request to upgrade his under other than honorable conditions discharge (UOTHC) to an honorable discharge.

2.  He states:

* although he was in the Army briefly, he was a good Soldier as evident by how well he did in basic, advanced, and basic airborne training
* he qualified expert in marksmanship with all weapons
* he was already an alcoholic, but did not know it and was never offered any treatment
* he did not see any combat, but risked his life every time he jumped out of a helicopter or a plane and would lay his life down for his country
* he does not want anything from the Army, he just wants to have this wrong corrected
* he wants help so he can volunteer to work at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Hospital

3.  He provides his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records, which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20110001927, dated 9 August 2011.

2.  The applicant provides new arguments that he was involved in an alcohol related incident and not offered treatment, was already an alcoholic, but did not know it, and was a good Soldier.  Therefore, they warrant consideration by this Board.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 April 1980 and after successfully completing basic and advanced individual training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman).

4.  The applicant's record documents no acts of valor or service warranting special recognition.

5.  His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows in:

   a.  item 9 (Awards, Decorations, and Campaigns), he was awarded the Basic Parachutist Badge and Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar 
(M-16); and 

   b.  item 17 (Civilian Education and Military Schools), he completed the basic airborne course in 1980.  

6.  The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), as follows on:

	a.  21 November 1980, for illegal drug possession and without proper authority, through neglect damaging by hitting the Perimeter Road fence;

	b.  24 April 1981, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 20 to 22 April 1981; 

	c.  5 June 1981, for being AWOL from 1 to 8 May 1981; and

   d.  14 July 1981, for being AWOL from 10 to 13 July 1981.

7.  On 4 June 1981, the applicant underwent a mental health evaluation in which the attending physician stated he had no significant mental illness, was able to distinguish right and wrong, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.

8.  On 16 July 1981, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant under the UCMJ, Article 86 (AWOL from 16 June to 1 July 1981), Article 91 (disrespectful in language towards a noncommissioned officer), and Article 134 (wrongfully communicated a threat to a noncommissioned officer).  

9.  The specific facts and circumstances surrounding his request for discharge processing are not available for review.  

10.  On 28 July 1981, the chief legal clerk informed the commander that the applicant had voluntarily submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial due to violation of the Article 134 of the UCMJ.

11.  On 4 August 1981, his company commander recommended approval of his request with the issuance of a UOTHC discharge.

12.  On 10 August 1981, his brigade commander recommended approval of his request with the issuance of a UOTHC discharge.

13.  On 13 August 1981, the separation authority approved his request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial, with the issuance of a UOTHC discharge.  

14.  On 24 August 1981, he was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he completed 1 year, 3 months, and 20 days of total active service.  

15.  There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

16.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time 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 at any time after court-martial charges were preferred.  Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service.  Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense(s) charged, type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of VA benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life due to such a characterization service.  A UOTHC discharge certificate would normally be furnished an individual who was discharged due to conduct triable by court-martial.

17.  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.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

18.  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.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no evidence that shows he admitted to, sought treatment for, or had any alcohol-related problems while he was on active duty.  However, the evidence of record shows he had four NJPs under the UCMJ, 42 days of lost time due to AWOL, and was charged with being AWOL, using disrespectful language towards a noncommissioned officer, and wrongfully communicating a threat to a noncommissioned officer.  As a result, his record of service was not satisfactory and he did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.

2.  It is commendable that the applicant successfully completing basic, advanced, and airborne training as well as qualifying with the M-16 while on active duty and that he desires to volunteer with the VA.  However, his training and desire to volunteer alone are insufficient to support an upgrade of his discharge.

3.  In view of the above, there is no basis for granting him relief.

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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20110001927, dated 9 August 2011.



      __________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)                                         AR20110020132





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110020132



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001927

    Original file (20110001927.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 28 July 1981, after consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), due to conduct triable by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. c. a UOTHC discharge is issued...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068466C070402

    Original file (2002068466C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he began using heroin while in the military and "was immediately addicted to this drug." On 30 January 2002 the Army Discharge Review Board unanimously denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014662

    Original file (20080014662.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 12 May 1983, the approving authority recommended that a board of officers be convened to determine if the applicant should be separated due to conviction by civil court based on Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, section II. There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050018298C070206

    Original file (20050018298C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 July 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050018298 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. His punishment consisted of 14 days extra duty, 14 days restriction, a forfeiture of $50.00 pay for one month, and reduction to private E-2 (suspended until 8 June 1981). However, the evidence of record shows that...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012741

    Original file (20130012741.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate. However, the evidence of record does not support his request for an upgrade of his UOTHC discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057603C070420

    Original file (2001057603C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    This rule is on the effect of the alcohol on the member's conduct, as well as the physical effect on his body. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the applicant was given a general discharge from the Army on 23 June 1981, under the provisions of Army Regulation...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002765

    Original file (20130002765.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge. Contrary to his contention that he was told he would be issued a general discharge, the evidence of record clearly shows he acknowledged he could be discharged UOTHC discharge and the results of the issuance of such a discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011228

    Original file (20120011228.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 22 February 1980, an official of the 573rd Personnel Service Company, Fort Bragg, NC, initiated a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) adjusting her enlistment grade from E-1 to E-3 effective 5 February 1979 (date of enlistment) in accordance with Army Regulation 601-280 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program). She was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action for unsuitability, the type of discharge she could receive and its effect on further enlistment or...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056343C070420

    Original file (2001056343C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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: Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001056343SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20010830TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE19820311DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200, CHAPTER 10 DISCHARGE REASONA70.00BOARD DECISION(DENY)REVIEW AUTHORITYISSUES 1.144.70002.3.4.5.6.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014904

    Original file (20100014904.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. On 6 April 1981, he was discharged 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 in pay grade E-1. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, stated an honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.