Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711291
Original file (9711291.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general/under honorable conditions discharge (GD).
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he was an excellent trainee in basic training; however, while at his first duty station he experienced difficulties which created a strong impetus from the chain of command to discharge him. Additionally, he claims in effect, that he was coerced by superior officers to sign forms acknowledging his desire to leave the military and that he desires to have his discharge reviewed based on his life experiences.

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

On 21 May 1974 he enlisted in the Regular Army for
3 years. At the time of his enlistment he was 19 years of age.

The applicant’s record documents no individual acts of achievement or performance warranting recognition or commendation and indicates the applicant never advanced beyond the rank of private/E-2.

On 22 July 1974 the applicant went AWOL from Fort Gordon, Georgia and remained so until 22 October 1974, a total of
92 days.

On 23 October 1974 a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) was prepared preferring court-martial charges against the applicant for violation of Article 86 (AWOL) of the UCMJ.

The record also contains documented evidence that on
1 November 1974 the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10 of AR 635-200 and acknowledged that he was guilty of the charges against him. 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 Veterans Administration and that he may be deprived of veterans benefits under state and federal law. The applicant also stated that under no circumstances did he desire to perform further military service.

On 7 November 1974 the applicant’s unit commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request and recommended a UD. On 8 November 1974 the first intermediate level commander recommended approval and concurred with a UD and on 17 April 1975 the second intermediate level commander recommended approval and concurred with a UD.

On 28 April 1975 the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed issuance of a UD. Accordingly, on 19 May 1975 the applicant was discharged after completing 8 months and 27 days of active military service and accruing 92 days of lost time 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.

On 16 June 1989 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.

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’s contention that he was coerced by superior officers to leave the military is not supported by either the evidence of record nor by any independent evidence submitted by the applicant.

2. The Board acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted his accomplishments since departing the Army, as evidenced by the documents included with his application; however, the Board does not consider said accomplishments sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

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

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008418

    Original file (20090008418.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 16 December 1975, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service and directed that a UD Certificate be issued and that the applicant be reduced to pay grade E-1. The applicant was discharged on 6 January 1976 in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with his service characterized as...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027901

    Original file (20100027901.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 11 July 1979, the appropriate separation authority voided his 1976 enlistment under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-15a(1), based on his concealment of his 1975 discharge under other than honorable conditions. His military records contain no evidence which would entitle him to an upgrade of his 1975 discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010665

    Original file (20090010665.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general under honorable conditions discharge (GD). On 10 July 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board, after carefully considering the applicant's military record and all available evidence, determined the applicant's discharge was proper and equitable and it voted to deny the applicant's request for an upgrade of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000635

    Original file (20110000635.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general discharge. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017260

    Original file (20090017260.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 14 November 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711615

    Original file (9711615.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100000066

    Original file (20100000066.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 8 January 1975, the applicant's unit commander recommended approval of the applicant's request for discharge with the issuance of a UD Certificate. On 8 January 1975, the applicant's battalion commander recommended approval of the applicant's request for discharge with the issuance of a UD Certificate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007101

    Original file (20130007101.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 25 June 1975, after consulting with counsel, he submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel). On 6 August 1975, the appropriate authority approved his request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 and directed that he be given an under other than honorable conditions discharge. _______ _ __X_____...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022185

    Original file (20100022185.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses charged, the type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of VA benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019314

    Original file (20090019314.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD) to an honorable discharge. On 8 October 1975, after consulting with counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.