| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was unjustly discharged from the Army. He states that his marital and family problems and age impaired his ability to serve in the Army. He states that his brother and son presently have flourishing military careers and their success is a reminder of his failure. He further asks that the Board consider a young man’s bad decision and an old man’s request.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant entered in the Army on 18 August 1967 for a period of 3 years. He was discharged on 17 November 1969 and immediately reenlisted on
18 November 1969. He successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual training at Fort Dix, New Jersey and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).
The file shows that the applicant’s highest rank attained while serving on active duty was specialist/E-4 and that during his active duty tenure he accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) on two occasions as follows: 15 December 1970, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 12 December to 14 December 1970, and for failure to go to his appointed place of duty; and 11 December 1970, for being AWOL from 10 December to 11 December 1970.
The applicant’s discharge packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge processing is not in the record. However, the file contains Special Order Number #88 dated 31 March 1971, issued by Headquarters, US Army Training Center, Infantry and Fort Polk, Fort Polk, Louisiana, that shows the applicant was discharged on 1 April 1971, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 and that his service was characterized as UOTHC. He was assigned separation program number (SPN) 246.
Appendix A of Army Regulation 635-5, in effect at the time, specifies the reasons for separation of members from active military service and the SPN to be assigned for these stated reasons. The appendix of that regulation provides that a SPN code of 246 will be assigned when separation is under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, to denote discharge for the good of the service.
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, chapter 10, in effect at the time, provides for members, who have committed an offense or offenses that authorize a punitive discharge, to submit a request for discharge for the good of the service. The request may be submitted at any time after court-martial charges are preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. A discharge UOTHC 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 record is void of facts and circumstances concerning events that led to a discharge from the Army. Lacking evidence to the contrary, administrative regularity is presumed in the applicant’s administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.
2. The Special Order Number #88 dated 31 March 1971, issued by Headquarters, US Army Training Center, Infantry and Fort Polk, Fort Polk, Louisiana, confirms that the applicant was discharged for the good of the service 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 chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial. Although he may now feel that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.
4. The applicant’s contentions that family and martial problems and his age impaired his ability to serve in the Army is not supported by the evidence of record, nor has he provided evidence to support these contentions.
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
___JNS__ __RTD__ __DPH __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001057763 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/08/28 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19710401 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200. . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1 93.01. | 23.00 |
| 2. 93.07 | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017638
On an unspecified date, the applicant requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service). He was subsequently discharged on 8 December 1972, with service characterized as under conditions other than honorable in accordance with the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with SPN 246, and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000752
The applicant's military personnel records contain a copy of Headquarters, U.S. Army Personnel Center, Fort Dix, Special Orders Number 144, dated 24 May 1971, that show the applicant was discharged on 24 May 1971, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service), with Separation Program Number (SPN) 246 [for the good of the service], and issued a DD Form 258A (Undesirable Discharge Certificate). ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012567
On 20 May 1971, the brigadier general serving as Commander, U.S. Army Training Center and Fort Campbell, approved the applicant's request for discharge from the U.S. Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the Service with Separation Program Number (SPN) 246; directed reduction of the applicant to the lowest enlisted grade; and the applicant be furnished a DD Form 258A (Undesirable Discharge Certificate). The DD Form 214, issued to the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012254
However, the applicant submitted a copy of his DD Form 214 which shows that on 26 August 1971, he was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness-established pattern of shirking. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. ___William F. Crain__________ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20060012254 SUFFIX RECON YYYYMMDD DATE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008959
The applicant requests, in effect, upgrade of his discharge to an honorable discharge. The applicant's military service records contain a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) that shows he was discharged on 22 January 1971, under conditions other than honorable, in accordance with the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the Service, with Separation Program Number (SPN) 246, and issued a DD Form 258A...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070210C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Appendix A of Army Regulation 635-5, in effect at the time, specifies the reasons for separation of members from active military service and the SPN to be assigned for these stated reasons. As requested by the applicant, the Board considered his good service during the enlistment under review and his Vietnam service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004167C070206
The applicant was awarded the Bronze Star Medal, for meritorious service for the period June 1970 though April 1971, by General Orders 3189, Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division (Airmobile), dated 18 April 1971. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but the separation authority...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004752C070206
The applicant requests, in effect, that all of the blocks on his DD Form 214 be completed and that he be provided an explanation of why he received a discharge under other than honorable conditions. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge on 11 January 1974 and that board found that his discharge was both proper and equitable and denied his request on 6 February 1974. That regulation also provided that information blocks contained on the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004127C070206
The applicant requests that his report of separation (DD Form 214) be corrected to reflect his awards of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm (RVNGC w/Palm) Unit Citation, three bronze service stars for wear on his already awarded Vietnam Service Medal (VSM), and his completion of Phases I and II of the Noncommissioned Officer Candidate Course in 1969. The applicant states, in effect, that he is entitled to awards of the RVNGC w/Palm Unit Citation and three bronze service stars...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070002818
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge, characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), be upgraded to an honorable discharge. This same statement was provided to this Board. There is no evidence in the applicant's records, and the applicant has provided none, to show that his discharge was unjust.