| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member | |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That at the time his life had become unmanageable so he used drugs and alcohol to escape reality. He goes on to state that things had become so unbearable that psychologically he experienced a mental breakdown and sought escape by leaving the military. He further states that had he been given a psycho-social evaluation at the time it would have shown that his decision making skills were clouded. At the time he was serving on the demilitarized zone (DMZ) in South Korea where the life expectancy was three to five seconds, where sirens were constantly going off to put units on alert, and using drugs at the time helped him deal with the situation. He also states that he was the oldest son of the family and his mother had experienced a mild heart attack, which added to the pressure. After 15 years of drug abuse, he sought treatment and has been clean for 2 years and is finally starting to get his life together. He states that he knows he was foolish to leave a career in the military and now asks the Board to recognize the seriousness of his addiction and grant him an upgrade of his discharge to help restore his life.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on 26 May 1981 for a period of 3 years and training as a tank turret repairer. He was 21 years of age at the time of enlistment.
He completed his basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and his advanced individual training (AIT) at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. While at Aberdeen Proving Ground, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for violation of the pass policy. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty. He completed his AIT and was transferred to Korea on 23 February 1983. He was advanced top the pay grade of E-4 on 1 June 1983.
On 25 January 1984, he reenlisted for a period of 5 years and assignment to Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
He completed his tour in Korea on 21 February 1984 and was transferred to Fort Belvoir on 2 April 1984.
On 26 November 1984 he went absent without leave (AWOL) and remained absent until he was apprehended by civil authorities on 23 September 1985 and was returned to military control at Riker’s Island Correctional Facility, Queens, New York. He was subsequently transferred to Fort Dix, New Jersey where charges were preferred against him for the AWOL offense.
Although the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not present in the available records, his records do contain a duly constituted report of separation (DD Form 214) which shows that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 21 January 1986 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had served 3 years, 9 months, and 28 days of total active service and had 301 days of lost time due to AWOL.
There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant 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 provisions for an automatic 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, it must be presumed that 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 supported by the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record. Accordingly, they are not sufficiently mitigating when compared to his extensive absences and his otherwise undistinguished record of service.
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
__wtm___ ___jm___ ___ao___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001056143 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/07/31 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1986/01/21 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/CH10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | GD OF SVC |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 689 | 144.7000/A70.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070012065C080213
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. That contention appears to be corroborated by the statement he made at the time he requested discharge. In his request for discharge, he stated he went AWOL after escaping from his guard and had no intention of returning after he had been gone for over 30 days.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080004099
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 5 October 1970, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with an undesirable discharge and a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. In 1981, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071841C070403
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: APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070016745
The applicant has requested a discharge upgrade because, at the time of his service, he was addicted to alcohol and drugs, and because subsequent to his discharge, he has turned his life around. He cites his education and his work with at-risk teens in effect, post-service conduct and achievement yet he provides no evidence in support of these achievements. The applicant had 281 days of lost time due to AWOL.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100433C070208
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. There is no indication 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. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against them or of a lesser included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071810C070403
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 more favorable discharge. The commanding general approved his request on 3 August 1973 and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | AR20050016250C070206
On 20 April 1977, he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge under the Department of Defense (DOD) Discharge Review Program (SDRP). This program, known as the DOD Discharge Review Program (Special) (SDRP) required, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, that a discharge upgrade to either honorable or general be issued in the case of any individual who had either completed a normal tour of duty in Southeast Asia, been wounded in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002254C070206
The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable and that the service dates on his report of separation (DD Form 214) be corrected to reflect the correct dates of his service. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 18 January 1973 for an upgrade of his discharge and the ADRB denied that request. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072795C070403
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: 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: However, the Board notes that the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214, which identifies the reason and characterization of the applicant’s discharge, and the Board presumes Government regularity in the discharge process.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016179
The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge. However, the available records do contain a duly-authenticated DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) which shows the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 25 October 1979 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...