APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was drunk at the time of the incident and does not remember going absent without leave (AWOL).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was born on 7 December 1954. He completed 12 years of formal education. On 30 August 1974, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty
64C10 (Motor Transportation Operator). The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-2.
Between 12 December 1974 and 2 June 1975, the applicant accepted four nonjudicial punishments, under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for six occasions of failure to repair and for being AWOL from 9 to 11 May and from 25 to 27 May 1975. His punishment included forfeitures, restrictions, extra duties and a reduction to pay grade E-1.
On 24 June 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 6 to 22 June 1975 and for breaking restriction.
On 27 June 1975, a mental and a physical evaluation found the applicant fit for retention.
On 28 June 1975, after consulting with legal counsel the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf, but declined to do so.
On 15 July 1975, the appropriate authority approved his request and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC. On
18 July 1975, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade
E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with a discharge UOTHC. He had completed 1 year, 1 month and 22 days of creditable active service.
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 UOTHC is normally
considered appropriate.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:
1. 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.
2. 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. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.
3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
4. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his allegation or request.
5. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicants 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
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707026C070209
On 19 June 1975, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge UOTHC. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions of an individual whose military record is not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was given a general discharge from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707026
On 19 June 1975, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge UOTHC. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions of an individual whose military record is not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was given a general discharge from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081847C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant was AWOL from his unit from 9-10 December 1974. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002081847SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20030722TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE19770328DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200, Chap 10 DISCHARGE REASONA71.00BOARD DECISION(DENY)REVIEW AUTHORITYISSUES 1.144.71002.3.4.5.6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064161C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 27 March 1975, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with a discharge UOTHC. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001064161SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20020205TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE19750327DISCHARGE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019237
On 2 May 1975, the applicant was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086756C070212
On 4 November 1975, the applicant was discharged, in the pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The Board reviewed the applicant's service records, which included two nonjudicial punishments for failure to go to duty and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058208C070421
He did not return from leave and was reported AWOL from 17 September 1974 to 24 January 1975. On 14 December 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075308C070403
On 30 April 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded 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: There is no evidence to show that he made his command or any other agency aware of any personal problems or that he attempted to resolve his problems in an administratively acceptable manner (e.g., a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059745C070421
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: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068441C070402
On 6 March 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant of being AWOL from 8 October 1974 to 28 February 1975. On 28 April 1975, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a UD. On 22 June 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.