| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John E. Denning | Member | |
| Mr. Terry L. Placek | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was placed in pretrial confinement, was tried and acquitted, and should have received a GD.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 22 August 1968, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 2 years. He completed basic training at Fort Benning, Georgia, and while enroute to advanced individual training he departed on his first period of being absent without leave (AWOL).
The applicant’s record shows that during his active duty tenure the highest rank he attained was private/E-2 (PV2). Further, there are no documented acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition on file in the service record.
However, the applicant’s record does confirm an extensive disciplinary history that includes his being convicted by a special and a summary court-martial in addition to his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment. It also verifies he had an extensive history of AWOL related misconduct. The record also confirms that on 16 July 1969, the applicant was tried by a special court-martial for stealing $40.00 and was acquitted; however, this was not the basis for his discharge.
On 6 July 1972, the applicant consulted legal counsel after a court-martial charge had been preferred against him for being AWOL from 10 April 1970 to 11 May 1972. After being advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, under circumstances that could lead to a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, the applicant requested he be discharged for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation
635-200. Counsel also advised the applicant of the effects of his request for discharge, the possible loss of veterans benefits, and of the rights available to him.
The specific facts and circumstances in regard to the processing of the applicant’s request for discharge and its approval are unclear. However, the record does contain a properly constituted separation document (DD Form 214) that was issued to and authenticated by the applicant with his signature on the date of his discharge. This separation document confirms that on 11 August 1972, he was discharged from the Army under other than honorable conditions. It also verifies that the authority for separation was chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 and the reason for discharge was for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
The separation document also confirms that on the date of his separation the applicant had completed a total of 1 year, 4 months, and 10 days of creditable active military service and had accrued a total of 940 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement. The applicant signed this form in block 32, thereby, verifying the data contained therein.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue 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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after court-martial charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions.
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 applicant’s contention that he was placed in pretrial confinement, was tried and acquitted, and should have received a GD lacks merit. The Board notes that he was acquitted of the charge of stealing $40.00 by a special
court-martial on 16 July 1969. However, this incident was unrelated to his discharge processing and is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
2. The evidence of record clearly shows that after being charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge, the applicant consulted legal counsel and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation
635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
3. The applicant’s record is unclear in regard to the separation processing subsequent to the applicant submitting his request for discharge. However, the Board notes that the applicant’s record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214, which was authenticated by the applicant, and identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge. Therefore, the Board presumed Government regularity in the discharge process.
4. The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. It also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge.
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
_ FNE __ __JED__ _ _TLP _ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001057443 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/09/13 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19720811 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200. . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | In Lieu of trial by CM |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 70.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090248C070212
On 16 November 1972, while he was still in confinement, the applicant submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial. He went on to state that he tried to be discharged once before and that his request for discharge was denied. There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081496C070215
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The Board determined that the applicant’s overall military service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel sufficient to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009617C071029
Documents related to the applicant's request for discharge, for the good of the service – in lieu of court-martial, are not available in his service personnel record. AR 635-200, chapter 5, provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 5, paragraph 5-9, specifically provides that Soldiers who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards, when accepted for induction or initial enlistment will be discharged when a medical board,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017714
On 23 February 1972, additional court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for one specification of failing to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty, on or about 8 February 1972, and one specification of being AWOL during the period on or about 18 February 1972 until on or about 22 February 1972. In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charges against him, or of a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070007777
The former service member (FSM) requests, in effect, that his discharge be upgraded to a discharge under honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the record of the individual concerned.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710984
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 | 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 | CY2001 | 2001057282C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 29 May 1971, he departed this unit in an AWOL status and remained absent until 7 July 1971 when he was returned to military control at Fort Polk, Louisiana. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051384C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 29 May 1971, he departed this unit in an AWOL status and remained absent until 7 July 1971 when he was returned to military control at Fort Polk, Louisiana. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001055081C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant presented any, to show that he requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant presented any, to show that he requested to speak with the Commanding General and...