| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Member |
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 had served on active duty for 24 months when he made a foolish mistake by accepting an administrative discharge.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 29 March 1974, he enlisted in the Regular Army for four years. He successfully completed basic training and attended advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Polk, Louisiana. Upon completion of AIT he was awarded military occupational specialty 11C (Indirect Fire Infantryman) and he was assigned to attend the basic airborne course at Fort Benning, Georgia. Upon graduation he was awarded the Parachutist Badge and given a special qualification indicator (SQI) of “P” (Parachutist).
On 1 July 1975, the applicant was promoted to the rank of specialist four (SP4), which is the highest rank he attained on active duty. The service record reveals no specific acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition achieved by the applicant during his active duty tenure. However, it does document a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
On 13 February 1976, the applicant accepted NJP for absenting himself from his place of duty and for unlawfully entering a dining facility with the intent to commit larceny. His punishment for these offenses included a reduction to the rank of private first class (PFC) and correctional custody for 30 days.
The record does not include the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the events which led to the applicant’s separation. However, it does contain a properly constituted Department of Defense (DD) Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty), which was issued to the applicant on the date of his discharge.
This document confirms that the applicant was discharged on 27 April 1976, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by court-martial. It also shows that at the time of his separation he had completed a total of 2 years and 29 days of active military service. The applicant authenticated this document with his signature on the date of his discharge, thereby, verifying the information contained therein.
There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade to his discharge within the 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 have been 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 an 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 noted the applicant’s contention that his decision to accept a discharge was a youthful mistake. However, after carefully examining the available evidence , the Board finds this factor alone does not provide a sufficient basis to grant the requested relief.
2. The record is void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the events that led to his discharge. However, there is a properly constituted
DD Form 214 on file, which was authenticated by the applicant. This document identifies the reason and characterization of his discharge and lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board presumed Government regularity in the discharge process.
3. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by court-martial. In connection with such a discharge, he would have been charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. Procedurally, he was required to consult with defense counsel, and to voluntarily, and in writing, request separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.
4. The Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process, and that the characterization of the applicant’s service was commensurate with his overall record of service.
5. 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.
6. 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
___be___ ___js ___ ___clg___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001051876 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/04/19 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1976/04/27 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | In Lieu of Court-Martial |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070122C070402
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 26 October 1976, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
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 | CY1997 | 9710214
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 applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710214C070209
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 the his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: On 3 November 1973 the applicant enlisted in the New York State Army National Guard for 6 years at the age of 17. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9708914C070209
The applicant took this action after being fully advised by counsel of the following: the basis for the contemplated trail by court martial; the maximum permissible punishment under the UCMJ; and the possible effects of an undesirable discharge. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9708914
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. The Board considered all the evidence of record to include the applicant's age and maturity at the time of his service. The applicant was charged with the commission of an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084835C070212
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 5 May 1976, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The evidence of record shows the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710592
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 | CY1997 | 9710191
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. On 14 February 1978 the...
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...