| Mr. | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. | Member | ||
| Mr. | Member |
| Mr. | Karl F. Schneider | Acting Director | |
| Analyst |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to general discharge/under honorable conditions (GD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that because of the Vietnam war the President stayed in school and he was given a UD. He further states that he has been an outstanding citizen, husband, and father for 24 years and would like to go to school and have his record cleared.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 13 January 1971 he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years at age 19.
The applicant's record is void of any significant acts of achievement, valor, or service meriting special recognition. The record documents only one award, the National Defense Service Medal. However, there is documented evidence that the applicant had a history of disciplinary infractions.
On 22 February 1971 the applicant went AWOL from his basic training unit and remained so until 25 February 1971,
a total of 4 days. On 19 March 1971 the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for violation of Article 86, UCMJ, (i.e., for being AWOL from his unit between 1 March and 17 March 1971). His punishment for this offense was a forfeit of $65.00; restriction for 30 days; and extra duty for 30 days.
The evidence of record indicates that on 29 December 1971 a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) was prepared preferring a court-martial charge against the applicant for violation of Article 86, UCMJ, (i.e., AWOL for the period 1 March through 17 December 1971).
The record also contains documented evidence that on 5 January 1972 the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of Chapter 10 of AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial. This request was made after the applicant had been advised by counsel of the basis for his contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment, and of the possible effects of a UD. The applicant also attested to the fact that he fully understood he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and that he may be deprived of veterans benefits under state and federal law.
On 31 January 1972 the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed issuance of a UD. Accordingly, on 11 February 1972 the applicant was discharged after completing 3 months and 1 day of active military service and accruing 279 days of time lost due to AWOL.
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 are 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 a UD.
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 Board acknowledges the applicant’s post service good citizenship and his desire to have his record cleared. However, after carefully reviewing the applicant’s entire service record, the Board did not find these issues sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
2. The applicant was charged with the commission of offenses punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge and after consulting with legal counsel, he voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, the applicant admitted guilt to the stipulated offenses under the UCMJ.
3. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation applicable at the time. The reason for and the character of the discharge are commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
4. 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.
5. 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
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709944
His second period of AWOL began on 20 November 1971 and ended on 5 January 1972. On 11 June 1979 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade to his discharge.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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710372
Ms.Karen J. NewsomeChairpersonMr.Raymond V. O’Connor Jr.MemberMs.Margaret K. PattersonMember Also present, without vote, were:Mr.Karl F. SchneiderActing DirectorMr.Joseph A. AdrianceAnalyst The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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: Chapter 10 of that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707418C070209
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any) APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to general discharge/under honorable conditions (GD). The record also contains documented evidence that on 5 January 1972 the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of Chapter 10 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 | CY1997 | 9707416C070209
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that at the time of his discharge the only offer made to him was to get locked up for 6 months or a UD. On 26 March 1971 the applicant was tried by special court-martial for violation of Article 86 (AWOL between 4 January and 8 February 1971). The record also contains documented evidence that on 21 March 1972 the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of Chapter 10 of AR 635-200.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707416
The record also contains documented evidence that on 21 March 1972 the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of Chapter 10 of AR 635-200. On 21 June 1972 the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed issuance of a UD. Accordingly, on 30 June 1972 the applicant was discharged after completing 2 years, 3 months, and 14 days of active military, and accruing 182 days of time lost due to AWOL.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709944C070209
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any) APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general/under honorable conditions discharge (GD). On 17 October 1971, shortly after completing AIT, rather than reporting to his first permanent duty assignment at Fort Hood, Texas, he began his first incident of AWOL. Chapter 10...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705757
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: On 25 January 1972 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade to his discharge and found that the discharge process was proper in all respects. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709513
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. 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: 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710372C070209
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any) APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to honorable (HD). 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 are...