APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, he needs an upgrade for Veterans Administration medical benefits.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 May 1971 for two years.

He received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, on several occasions for AWOL and misconduct.

Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 15 February 1972 for numerous occasions of AWOL.

On 12 April 1972 he requested discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10, to avoid trial.  He acknowledged he understood he may be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished a UD Certificate.  He also acknowledged he understood as a result of the issuance of such a discharge he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits, ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA and may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  He requested and received approval for discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial.

The appropriate authority approved his request and directed that he be issued a UOTHC discharge certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 27 April 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He was credited with less than 8 months total active service and 91 days lost time due to AWOL and civilian confinement. 

On 7 August 1979 he was advised that his application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade was denied by unanimous vote.

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.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, 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 inappropriate.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations it is concluded:

1.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.

2.  Careful consideration has been given to the applicant’s contention.  However, his extensive absence for which court-martial charges have been preferred against him is too serious, and his service was too undistinguished, for equitable relief to be appropriate.  He acknowledged the loss of benefits when he requested discharge in lieu of court-martial trial.

3.  An Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and 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.  He has not convinced the Board he deserves an honorable characterization of his service.

4.  His UOTHC characterization of service is appropriate.  His service was not fully honorable.

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 the aforementioned requirement.

6. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.


BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT          

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director