| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his ability to serve in the Army was impaired due to his age and marital problems. He states that before his separation from the Army he was trying to be a good soldier. He further states that the only evidence that he has to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge is his prior honorable service. In support of his application, he submits a certificate of training (Postal Operations Course), a copy of his honorable discharge certificate, dated 4 April 1971, and a copy his undesirable discharge certificate.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 3 July 1969, he enlisted in the Army for a period of 3 years. On 4 April 1971, he was honorably discharged and on 5 April 1971, he immediately reenlisted. He held military occupational specialty (MOS) 71F (Postal Clerk) and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was specialist/E-4.
On 23 March 1971, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.
The applicant’s discharge packet is missing from his military records; however, his separation document (DD Form 214) shows that on 26 May 1972, he was administratively discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 for conduct triable by court-martial. His service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions and at the time of his discharge he had completed a total of 2 years, 9 months and 12 days of active military service.
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. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within 15-year statue of limitations.
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 record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the Army. However, the Board notes that his record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214, which was authenticated by the applicant with his signature, and contains the authority and reason for his separation. Therefore, the Board presumes government regularity in the discharge process.
2. The separation document confirms that the applicant was discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. Procedurally, this would have required him to consult with legal counsel after being charged with the commission of an offense(s) punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge. In addition, he would have had to voluntarily request separation after admitting guilt to the stipulated offense(s) under the UCMJ.
3. The applicant’s contention that his age and marital problems impaired his ability to serve in the Army is not supported by the evidence of record or the independent evidence he submitted with his application.
4. The Board considered the applicant’s prior honorable service as he requested; however, it concludes that the misconduct which led to his separation in lieu of trail by court-martial was not outweighed by prior service of sufficient merit to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
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
___CLA__ __CLG__ __DPH__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001057466 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/09/11 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19720526 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, Chapter 10 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Separation in lieu of trial by court-martial |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1 93.01 | 70.00 |
| 2. 93.07 | |
| 3.92.19 | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009369
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable or general discharge. The results of his application are not present in the available records; however, it is reasonable to presume that the ADRB denied his request as there is no evidence indicating that his discharge was upgraded. Accordingly, there appears to be no basis for granting the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018008
The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The applicant provides a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States); a four-page self-authored statement; a DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge); a DA Form 1341-1 (Allotment Document); a VA [Veterans Administration] Form 10-2502 (Appointment Card); a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003585
In addition, he states that he received an honorable discharge while serving in Vietnam. However, his DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged on 5 February 1973 under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) by reason of in lieu of trial by court-martial with an undesirable discharge and service characterized as under other than honorable conditions. Evidence of record shows that the applicant was age 20 years, 2 months, and 10 days at the time his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009226
The applicant states: * he enlisted in the Army in 1970 and completed a 3-year term * he reenlisted for another 3 years and came home on leave to find his wife living with another man * he was then absent without leave (AWOL) and did not return * he lost his honorable discharge due to marital complications * he wants his discharge upgraded so he can receive his veterans' benefits 3. On 6 April 1972 after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good...
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 | 20110014762
Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separation - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-marital. There is no evidence the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations. Although an honorable discharge or GD is authorized, a discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100029512
On 17 March 1973, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, and directed that he receive an undesirable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. _______ _ __X_____ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011250
The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 11 April 1977, the applicant submitted a request for an upgrade of his discharge under the SDRP. On 8 November 1977, the applicant was notified by the President, ADRB that: * his discharge upgrade could not be affirmed under standards required by Public Law 95-126 * his discharge may impact his ability to acquire VA benefits 12.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059780C070421
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 separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge. However, they are not supported by either...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006556
On 19 August 1971, court-martial charges were preferred against him for one specification of being AWOL from 10 September 1970 to 16 March 1971. On 13 September 1971, consistent with the applicant's chain of command's recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial and directed that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and issued an...