| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Vic Whitney | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman | Member | |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: That the conditions that led to his discharge were beyond his control and his discharge was unfair. He also states that an officer threatened his career and he received bad advice from military legal counsel. He submits three character reference letters in support of his request.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted at almost 25 years of age and entered active duty in the pay grade of E-4 on 5 August 1975, with over 4 years prior active service. He completed training as a Lance missile crewman and was assigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma. He was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 effective 16 July 1976.
Effective 11 April 1977, he was honorably discharged for the purpose of reenlistment. He reenlisted for 6 years effective 12 April 1977, and was assigned to Germany in August 1979, as a switchboard operator. He was absent without leave (AWOL) from 31 August 1979 to 2 January 1980.
Charges were preferred on the applicant for 124 days AWOL on 25 January 1980. After consulting with counsel, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. In his request he acknowledged that he was guilty of the offense charged which authorized imposition of a punitive discharge. He also stated that he had no desire for further military service and understood that he might be denied many or all Army and Veterans Administration (VA) benefits.
The separation authority, a major general, approved the request on 11 February 1980, and directed separation under other than honorable conditions at the lowest enlisted grade. Effective 14 February 1980, the applicant was separated under other than honorable conditions under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He had 2 years, 3 months, and 4 days creditable service on this enlistment and 124 days lost time.
The three character reference letters submitted by the applicant attest to his diligence and commitment to his employment and his friendly and compassionate character.
There is no evidence of record that the applicant applied for a discharge upgrade from the Army Discharge Review Board within the established 15-year time limit.
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.
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 evidence of record does not support the applicant’s contentions that he was threatened by a superior officer and provided bad advice by counsel. The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and VA benefits.
2. 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. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
3. While the Board has taken cognizance of the applicant's favorable employment statements and his apparent good post-service conduct; none of these factors, either individually or in sum, warrant the relief requested. The Board notes that the applicant was almost 28 years of age at the time of his AWOL.
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
__ca___ ___dh___ ___cg___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001057696 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010911 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19800414 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, CH 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A71.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.02 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001225C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. He states that his recruiter lied to him about being able to have the government relocate his family with him at his first duty station. A punitive discharge is authorized for offenses under Article 86, for periods of AWOL in excess of 30 days.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070001309C071029
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states, in a statement dated 11 January 2007, that he enlisted and loved his training. Since he had been gone from Fort Meade for 48 days with evidently no further threats from those two Soldiers (at least he did not mention at the time or currently that he received any further threats), and since after he turned himself in he was sent to Fort Dix and not returned to Fort Meade, his statement now that he felt so threatened...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011272
He states that he obtained employment and adds that the 6 months he was in an AWOL status was the most stressful period of his life. The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged on 21 August 1980 in accordance with the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial, and his service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions. There...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076143C070215
The Board considered the following evidence: The applicant's Report of Separation and Record of Service, NGB Form 22, shows he was discharged from the ARARNG (but not as a Reserve of the Army) on 28 May 1979 by reason of being ordered to involuntary active duty. Counsel stated that it was the applicant's understanding that he was discharged from military service and that he was completely unaware of being placed on active duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130001177
On 6 October 1980, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. There is no evidence indicating he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge. Furthermore, there is no evidence indicating he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016874
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 lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a discharge under other honorable conditions. The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time of his discharge shows he was discharged for the good of the service with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions. Although an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072759C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to either an honorable or medical discharge. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he should have been discharged by reason of medical disability because he was addicted to drugs and alcohol and was never offered any help for his illness.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090233C070212
The applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 8 October 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. The applicant's record of service included one nonjudicial punishment and 124 days of lost time and for that reason his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012393
There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant was diagnosed with depression or any mental condition prior to his discharge. However, there is no evidence of record and the applicant did not provide any evidence which shows he was diagnosed with any mental condition prior to discharge. Evidence of record shows the applicant completed 4 months and 28 days of creditable active service prior to his enlistment in the Regular Army on 23 February 1977.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003676C070205
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. 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 conduct or dishonorable discharge and they must indicate that they have been briefed and understand...