| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. John H. Kern | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Margaret V. Thompson | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a more favorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that although nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him on seven occasions and he had three periods of being absent without leave, he served his country in Vietnam and Germany.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He volunteered for induction in Indianapolis, Indiana on 19 June 1968 and successfully completed his training. He was transferred to Germany on 8 November 1968 for duty as an armor intelligence specialist. He reenlisted on 13 June 1969 for assignment to Vietnam and remained in Germany until 24 July 1969. He reported to Vietnam on 28 September 1969. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 10 December 1969.
A review of the applicant’s records shows that NJP was imposed against him on seven occasions for leaving his weapon unguarded, disobeying direct/lawful orders, AWOL (two separate offenses), and insubordination. His records also show that he went AWOL on three separate occasions from 6 to 18 April 1971, from 6 July to 28 November 1971 and from 2 December 1971 to 4 January 1972.
All of the facts and circumstances surrounding his administrative discharge are not present in the available records. However, the available records show that he submitted a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. The appropriate authority (a major general) approved his request on 15 January 1972 and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 31 January 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had served 2 years, 1 month, and 6 days of active service during his current enlistment (total of 3 years and 1 month) and had 196 days of lost time. His awards included the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Army Commendation Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal and the National Defense Service Medal.
There is no indication that the applicant has ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of the 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 charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. Such a request is strictly voluntary on the part of the person who has been charged and they must indicate that they have been briefed on the consequences of accepting a discharge under other than honorable conditions and must also indicate that they have not been coerced by anyone to request such a discharge. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate and there are no automatic provisions for an upgrade of such a 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:
1. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.
2. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.
3. A request for discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial requires a voluntary request on the part of the individual concerned. Therefore, it appears that he voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a felony conviction on his records. While he may now believe that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.
4. The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating when compared to the seriousness of his offense and his overall disciplinary record.
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
___mm__ __mvt ___ ___jhk __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001052792 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/04/17 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1972/01/31 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/CH10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | 689/GD OF SVC |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 689 | 144.7000/A70.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072055C070403
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: EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051267C070420
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The applicant had NJP imposed against him again on 13 July and 27 July 1971 for violations of Article 86, UCMJ and his punishment consisted of extra duty, restriction and a suspended reduction to the pay grade of E-2 for 90 days. However, his records do show that he requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial and the appropriate authority (a major general)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071659C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He further states that he served two tours in Vietnam, received many awards during his 7 years of service, and was promotable to the pay grade of E-6. He was transferred to Vietnam on 26 August 1970.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060007407C070205
The applicant requests that the undesirable discharge of her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM), be upgraded to honorable. She also states that the FSM’s brother was just a cook and got his discharge changed and he did not see what the FSM saw in Vietnam. Chapter 10 of the 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 charges have been...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060006723C070205
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to at least a general discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 27 January 1972, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072735C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. He volunteered for duty in Vietnam on 27 November 1967 and departed Germany on 14 May 1968, with a report date to Oakland Army Base, California, on 9 June 1968.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001622
The applicant requests his Undesirable Discharge (UD) be upgraded to an under honorable conditions (General) discharge (GD). On 27 April 1972, the approving authority accepted the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. There is no evidence the applicant's service in Vietnam was the cause of his misconduct and ultimate discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004099952C070208
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The application submitted in this case is dated 21 October 2003. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must indicate that they have been briefed and understand the consequences of such a request as well as the discharge they might receive.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070651C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He remained in Germany until 9 July 1969, when he was transferred to Vietnam. He extended his tour in Vietnam for a period of 6 months and was granted a 30-day special leave with a return date of 10 June 1970.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089595C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. He goes on to state that he requested a transfer to Vietnam and his request was approved; however, when he arrived at Fort Lewis, Washington, he was diverted to another armored division at Fort Hood, Texas, to again be a gofer.