| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr. | Member | |
| Mr. Eric N. Anderson | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the undesirable discharge of her deceased spouse, a former service member (FSM), be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the FSM’s characterization of service should be upgraded posthumously because he was compelled by forces beyond his control to take emergency leave, which resulted in his absences. She contends that going absent without leave (AWOL) is not a crime, especially during peacetime. She further states that the FSM’s death is an indirect result of his military service. In support of her application, she submits a certificate of death, a copy of the FSM’s Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge (DD Form 214), and a certificate of marriage.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The FSM’s military records show:
On 3 October 1968, he enlisted in the Army for a period of 3 years. The highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private (E-1) and he completed just 7 months and 9 days of creditable service prior to being discharged on
12 December 1969.
The file indicates the FSM had three periods of AWOL totaling 211 days of time lost: from 9 January to 17 March 1969; 11 April to 7 July 1969; and
27 September to 21 November 1969. He was convicted by a special
court-martial of just the first two AWOL periods and on 26 November 1969, a
court-martial charge was preferred against him for the third period of AWOL.
The FSM, after consulting with legal counsel and being advised of basis for the contemplated separation action and its impact, and of the rights available to him,. voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation from the Army for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
The FSM’s request for discharge was approved by the appropriate authority who directed he receive an undesirable discharge. On 12 December 1975, he was discharged accordingly, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
The FSM submitted a request for an upgrade of his discharge to the Army Discharge Review Board and it was denied on 19 May 1980.
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 FSM’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. The FSM chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial and the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and that his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process..
3. The contentions of the applicant have been noted and while the Board is empathetic with her loss of her husband, her claims are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the FSM’s discharge.
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 this 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
__RVO_ __ HOF __ __ENA__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001057253 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/07/26 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | ( UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19691212 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, chapter 10. . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 23.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001747
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 August 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110001747 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant provides the FSM's: * Bronze Star Medal orders and citation * Discharge orders * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report or Transfer or Discharge) * Certificate of Death * Seven character reference letters * Letter from the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE: Counsel provides no...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076496C070215
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the deceased former service member’s (FSM’s) undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. 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. However, at the time of the applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009843
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The DD Form 214 issued to the FSM on 4 April 1973, the date of his discharge, confirms he was separated UOTHC under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. Records show the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on should have been discovered on 4 April 1973, the date of the FSM's discharge, and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002540C070205
The applicant requests, in effect, that her late husband's, a former service member (FSM), second discharge be upgraded to either an honorable or a general discharge. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged on 25 April 1973, under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate with his service characterized as under other than honorable conditions. There is no evidence in the available...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008856C070205
The applicant, as the widow of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests that her late husband’s undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. In a 7 September 2005 letter written by the FSM and provided by the applicant, the FSM stated, in effect, that he went absent without leave (AWOL) because of marital problems and that he was told his discharge would be upgraded to honorable within 90 days. The FSM’s request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024853
In his voluntary request for discharge he acknowledged he understood that if his request was accepted he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The evidence of record shows the FSM entered military service using SSN XXX-88-XXXX and this was the only SSN he used during his Army service. _______ _ __x_____ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board...
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 | CY2003 | 2003090021C070212
The Board considered the following evidence: APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the undesirable discharge (UD) her husband, a former service member (FSM), received be upgraded to an honorable discharge. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The FSM’s military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002343
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The FSM's record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 11 April 1966 and was honorably discharged on 14 March 19068 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. Further, the applicant should note that her father's honorable service between 11 April 1966 and 14 March 1968, is properly documented in the DD Form 214 the FSM was issued on 14 March 1968.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008599
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that the records of her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM), be corrected by upgrading his undesirable discharge to a general discharge under honorable conditions. There is no evidence to show the FSM applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.