Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606810C070209
Original file (9606810C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he had applied for a compassionate reassignment which was unfairly denied.  His record of AWOL was only a small fraction of his service time and should be considered only minor, isolated events that should not stop his discharge from being upgraded.  He contends that he tried to serve but was denied fair consideration and therefore, was unable to complete his obligation.  In support of his request, he has included letters from the local police and sheriff’s departments attesting to the fact that he has no warrant for his arrest.  He has also included four character references from friends, a minister and a county commissioner.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 2 years on 25 March 1974 and received an undesirable discharge on 10 October 1975.  He had 136 days of lost time.

On 22 August 1974 he accepted punishment under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ for losing his weapon.  As punishment he received a forfeiture of $75.00 pay for 1 month, reduction to pay grade E-1 and extra duty for 14 days.  His only award is the National Defense Service Medal.

On 20 September 1974 he applied for a compassionate reassignment from Fort Riley, Kansas to Fort Hood, Texas because of medical problems of his parents.  That request was denied on the basis that the medical problems of his parents were chronic and had existed at the time of his enlistment in the service.  The use of ordinary leave to be with his parents if and when surgery was performed was recommended.

On 15 April 1975 he departed AWOL, returning on 28 April 1975.  He again departed AWOL on 8 May 1975 and returned on 8 September 1975.

Charges were preferred against him on 10 September 1975 for the aforementioned AWOL periods.  Thereafter, the applicant consulted with counsel and submitted a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.

In a statement setting forth his reasons for going AWOL he explained that his parents were hospitalized and he was told that it would take the same amount of months or more as it did with his last compassionate reassignment request to have another request considered, so he took it upon himself to leave.  (The record shows that at the time of his AWOL, he had three sisters and two brothers living at home with his parents, two of whom were approximately the same age as the applicant and three were younger than he).  He further stated that he believed a discharge would be best for himself, his family and the Army

On 26 September 1975 the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

The applicant’s request to the Discharge Review Board was not submitted within the 15 year statute of limitations for applications to be considered by that board.

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 has provided no evidence and the records contain none that support his request to upgrade his discharge.

2.  The health problems of his parents were apparently long term and existed at the time he entered the service.  Furthermore, he had brothers and sisters at home who would have been available to assist until his arrival. He would also have had the option of taking leave to assist them in an emergency.  Finally, he had the option of resubmitting another compassionate reassignment request, which he chose to disregard, had his home situation so dictated.  He chose instead to disregard these options and take matters into his own hands by going AWOL.

3.  The applicant’s character references have been noted by the Board.  While his post service conduct has apparently been laudatory it is not a sufficient basis to overcome his behavior while a soldier.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there appears to be 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

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021175

    Original file (20090021175.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. The applicant states that when he got out of the hospital in Vietnam, he applied for and he was granted leave to go home. 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070018612

    Original file (20070018612.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Director Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: M Chairperson M Member M Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his Undesirable Discharge (UD) be upgraded.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009454

    Original file (20130009454.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states he believes he was discharged for the wrong reasons. However, there is no evidence of record to show that he did not know that going AWOL was wrong.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085219C070212

    Original file (2003085219C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. He stated that the applicant went AWOL because he was not getting along and did not like the training. The applicant has not presented and the records do not...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087635C070212

    Original file (2003087635C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. COUNSEL CONTENDS : That this Board consider all of the evidence of record to include the letters that the applicant’s submitted attesting to his post-service conduct. On 8 February 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020610

    Original file (20130020610.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to general under honorable conditions. On 2 January 1976 after having considered the applicant's request, the separation authority approved his request and directed the issuance of an undesirable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013509

    Original file (20100013509.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant understood that he would be discharged under than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. In a letter, dated 13 March 2010, the applicant's twin brother stated the applicant was not the same person when he returned from Vietnam.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140009020

    Original file (20140009020.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests upgrade of his discharge to honorable and correction of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty). On 22 July 1976, the applicant appeared in person before the ADRB and testified under oath that – * he enlisted to better his education and or training to get some kind of training that he couldn't otherwise get or afford * he first started having problems in the service when he couldn't get an allotment for his wife * the entire time he was in Germany it...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000724

    Original file (20150000724.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    BOARD DATE: 10 September 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150000724 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). _______ _ _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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070400C070402

    Original file (2002070400C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. Both requests were denied.