| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Allen L. Raub | Member | |
| Ms. Gail J. Wire | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his dishonorable discharge be upgraded to honorable and all his benefits be restored.
APPLICANT STATES: That his crime was not violent, he simply was absent without leave (AWOL) for a prolonged period. He was sentenced to jail time. He thinks the sentence was too severe for the crime. Many people were granted amnesty for crimes during the Vietnam era. He provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 October 1969. He completed basic combat training but not advanced individual training.
On 2 April 1973, the applicant requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. The appropriate authority found that to grant such a request would not be in the best interest of ensuring justice and preserving discipline in the Army and denied his request.
On 20 April 1973, the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial of AWOL from 4 January – 10 June 1970 and 6 July 1970 – 2 March 1973. He was sentenced to forfeit all pay and allowances, to be confined at hard labor for 4 months, and to be dishonorably discharged.
On or about 9 August 1973, the applicant’s sentence was affirmed.
On 31 October 1973, the applicant was discharged with a dishonorable discharge pursuant to his sentence by court-martial. He had completed 6 months and 16 days of creditable active service and had 992 days of lost time.
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. 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 this requirement.
2. Considering the length of AWOL, trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses charged. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted.
3. 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
__rwa___ __gjw___ __alr___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001051488 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010327 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | DD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19731031 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 105.01 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001055422C070420
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his dishonorable discharge be upgraded. Accordingly, on 15 November 1973 the applicant was discharged with a dishonorable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, pursuant to the sentence of a general court-martial. The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service and determined that his discharge does not warrant upgrading because of his poor disciplinary record, excessive amount of lost time, and the seriousness of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072445C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. His sentence included a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement at hard labor for 3 years and reduction to pay grade E-1. 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 | CY2002 | 2002071351C070402
The applicant was 18 years old at the time he entered active duty and had 12 years of formal education. In March 1974 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070692C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his dishonorable discharge be upgraded to a more favorable discharge. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056014C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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: An upgrade of a soldier’s discharge may be warranted if the Board determines that the discharge was in error or unjust.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050016028C070206
The applicant requests that his dishonorable discharge be upgraded to a general under honorable conditions discharge. The decisional document further shows that the Board of Review affirmed the general court-martial and found that the findings of guilty and the sentence were approved by proper authority, correct in law and fact as determined on the basis of the applicant's entire record. The applicant contends that his dishonorable discharge should be upgraded to a general under honorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090342C070212
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 17 August 1973, the Army and Air Force Clemency and Parole Board remitted the sentence to confinement in excess of seven years. Therefore, it finds there is an insufficient basis to grant clemency in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040008258C070208
On 12 January 1976, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive an UOTHC discharge. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15- year statute of limitations. After being advised of his rights and of the effects of an UOTHC discharge, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086584C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : That it has been 54 years since he was 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 | CY2003 | 2003088922C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 29 August 1969, the United States Army Court of Military Review upon consideration of the entire record, including consideration of the issues specified by the appellant, held that the findings of guilty and the sentence as approved by the convening authority were correct in law and fact.