| Ms. | June Hajjar | Chairperson | |
| Mr. | Raymond V. O’Conner Jr. | Member | |
| Ms. | Shirley L. Powell | Member |
| Mr. | Loren G. Harrell | Director | |
| Mr. | Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his AWOL offenses were related to his inability to resolve not receiving his enlistment assignment option; that he was promised by his recruiter that he would be trained in military occupational specialty (MOS) 24K (Hawk Radar Specialist ) and was instead trained in MOS 62F (Recovery Specialist).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 28 February 1973 the applicant entered the Regular Army for 3 years at the age of 19. He enlisted for training in MOS 24K (Improved Hawk CW Radar Repair) and assignment to Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. The applicant successfully completed basic training at Fort Knox, Kentucky and was assigned to Redstone Arsenal for 24K MOS training.
On 21 May 1973 the applicant authenticated a statement which indicated that he was waving his enlistment training option of 24K (Improved Hawk CW Radar Repair), in order to attend MOS training in 63F (Recovery and Evacuation). The statement also contained the applicant’s waiver of his assignment option to Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. He also attested to fully understanding that, upon completion of his training, he would be assigned based on the needs of the Army. The applicant was then assigned to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland for training in his newly chosen MOS of 63F.
The applicant’s record documents no individual acts of valor, achievement or service warranting special recognition. However, the record does indicate the applicant had a record of AWOL related disciplinary infractions which included at least three incidents of AWOL and acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, on two separate occasions.
On 14 August 1973 the applicant accepted an NJP for being absent from his place of duty on 11 August 1973. His punishment for this offense was 7 days of restriction and extra duty.
On 16 October 1973 the applicant accepted another NJP for being AWOL from 20 September to 3 October 1973. The resultant punishment for this offense included a forfeiture of $70.00 (suspended), and 14 days of extra duty and restriction.
The record also documents an AWOL period from 16 November to 4 December 1973; a period of confinement from 5 to 17 December 1973; and his final AWOL period from 19 December 1973 to 22 January 1974.
The evidence of record is void of facts and circumstances concerning events that led to the applicant’s discharge from the Army. However, the applicant’s record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Report Of Separation From Active Duty). The DD Form 214 indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service-in lieu of court-martial, with a UD. The DD Form 214 also documents the reason for discharge as for the good of the service which could only have been accomplished at the voluntary request of the applicant based on court-martial charges having been preferred against him. This action would have also required the applicant’s admission of guilt to the offense or offenses for which he was charged. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged on
18 March 1974 with a UD, after completing 10 months and 1 day of active military service, and accruing 80 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for 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. 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, and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The Board concluded the applicant’s contention, that his AWOL was the result of his trying to resolve not being given the assignment promised him by his recruiter, was unfounded. The evidence of record clearly shows the applicant voluntarily waived his enlistment options; therefore, his issue does not mitigate his misconduct or warrant an upgrade to his discharge.
2. Although the applicant’s record is void of facts and circumstances concerning events that led to a discharge from the Army, the Board did note that the applicant’s record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Report Of Separation From Active Duty) which documents the reason and characterization of the discharge, and the Board presumed government regularity in preparation of the document. The DD Form 214 is evidence that the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge, and voluntarily requested separation from the Army, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, the applicant would have had to admit guilt to the stipulated offense under the UCMJ.
3. 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.
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
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
Loren G. Harrell
Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710591C070209
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 an honorable discharge (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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060007552
The applicant states that item 18b (Prior Active Service) on his DD Form 214 does not indicate his training in MOS 35F2O at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama or his training in the USMAPS at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, states that item 27 (Remarks) would list formal in-service training courses successfully completed during the period of service covered by the DD Form 214. As a result, the Board recommends, as an exception to policy,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709949
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. APPLICANT STATES : In...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090936C070212
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge, that his reenlistment code be changed to RE (Reenlistment Eligibility) Code 1 and that the reason for his discharge be changed to, "for the convenience of the Government." Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. The Board noted that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080002C070215
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show he was inducted on 1 August 1968, as a field artilleryman. On 22 March 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The evidence of record shows that he was attached pending approval/disapproval of his request for a hardship discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03091498C070212
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The Board considered the following evidence: The applicant’s request for discharge was approved and on 25 July 1979 he was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002083790C070215
On 21 June 1978, the unit commander recommended the applicant be eliminated from service under the provisions of paragraph 14-33b, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UOTHC discharge. On 18 August 1978, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation with a UOTHC discharge. On 15 September 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707868
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. The Board considered the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705439
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. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711615
The applicant’s request was made only after he had been advised, by his appointed military counsel, of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial; the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ; of the possible effects of a UD if the request were approved; and of the procedures and rights available to him. On 19 May 1978 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge and found that the discharge process was...