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

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, he was having personal problems and that the military had become an intricate part of the system and that he should have fought harder to keep his status as a military soldier.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 April 1971.

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

Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 27 March 1972 for numerous occasions of AWOL.

On 5 May 1972 he requested discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10, to avoid trial.  He received counsel and acknowledged he understood he may be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge 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.  

On 22 May 1972 the appropriate authority approved his request and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 22 May 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 7 months, and 17 days total active service and 159 days lost time due to AWOL and civilian confinement. 

On 3 April 1974 he was advised that his application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade was denied by unanimous vote.

On 29 June 1974 the applicant applied to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records.  There is no evidence of a response.

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.

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 at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.

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

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director