| Mr. Loren G. Harrell | Director | |||
| Ms. Antoinette Farley | Analyst |
| Mr. Franklin R. Taylor. | Chairperson | |||
| Ms. Karen J. Newsome | Member | |||
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD) to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, his discharge was improper and inequitable.
COUNSEL STATES: That the applicant was improperly discharged because no attempts were made to rehabilitate him before he received a UD as the the result of his AWOL. He further stated that the applicant only completed the sixth grade, dropped out of school and has insufficient skills and/or the mental resources to understand orders given him, such as Army rules and regulation. Therefore, Counsel contends his discharged should have been under AR 635-209 (Unsuitability) not AR 635-200, for leaving his active duty unit to go home, since he felt his wife needed him there.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant’s military records show:
He was born on 15 April 1943 and was inducted in the Army for 2 years on 5 October 1970. His Armed Forces qualification Test (AFQT) score was 76, Category II. Following completion of the required basic combat training, at Fort Lewis, Washington, he was assigned to a unit at Fort Ord, California, for advanced individual training.
The applicant was first listed as absent without leave (AWOL) from 18 to 19 January 171. He received nonjudicial punishment, under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice. His punishments included forfeiture of pay, 14 days restriction company area, not to prelude attendance at church or place of training, extra duty for a period of 14 days with the latter two punishments to run concurrently. He then went AWOL again from 1 February to 22 July 1971. Upon his return to military control at Fort Ord, he was processed for separation. However, the discharge proceedings are not a matter of record.
ON 23 September 1971, the applicant was discharged with a UD, under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant was credited with 5 months and 14 days of active service and 174 days lost time during two periods of AWOL. He never completed his military training and was still in a “trainee” status at the time of his discharge.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of the 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 trail 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. Army policy states that although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOHC is normally considered appropriate. However, at the time of the applicant’s separation the regulation provided for the issuance of a UD.
There is no evidence of record that the applicant ever requested a review of his discharge by the Army Discharge Review Board within the 15 year statute of limitations for applicant to that Board.
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. While the applicant had limited schooling, there is no evidence presented that he was not capable of completing his military training. His AFQT score was high which indicated that the applicant had the capability to train, but would not train. He also completed his basic combat training.
3. Trail by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses charged. The applicant chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law and regulations applicable at the time with the applicant’s signature on his DD-214 confirming his acceptance of an chapter 10 discharge. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record.
4. 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
FRT KJN TSK DENY APPLICATION
Karl F. Schneider
Acting Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705703C070209
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 to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. There is no evidence of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608830C070209
The first specification covered the period the applicant was AWOL from Fort Ord, 7 September-18 October 1971 and the second specification was for an AWOL period 21-22 October (1 day) from Fort Leonard Wood. Accordingly, on 19 October 1972 the applicant was discharged while in an AWOL status after completing 1 year, 1 month, and 15 days of active military service and accruing 121 days of time lost. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085161C070212
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 to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075901C070403
The Board considered the following evidence: APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his General Discharge (GD) be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge (HD). On 3 May 1972, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-3, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a GD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001055265C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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 | CY2007 | 20070009839
The applicant states, in pertinent part, that medical evidence supports a discharge characterization upgrade. The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) the applicant was issued at the time of his discharge confirms he was discharged and his characterization of service was under other than honorable conditions. The second psychiatrist states, it is his professional opinion that the applicant should have been honorably discharged under medical conditions so as to be eligible...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068610C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 9 June 1976, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge after determining that he had been properly discharged. 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 | CY2006 | 20060011943
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. 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. James E....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100001C070208
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. The application submitted in this case is dated 12 August 2003.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019446
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. Counsel requests, in a five-page brief, in effect, that the applicants undesirable discharge be upgraded to at least a general discharge. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that 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...