| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Walter Avery | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Kathleen A. Newman | Member | |
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he served in the Army honorably and had it not been because of family hardship he would have made the Army a career.
He submits no documents or other evidence in support of his request.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted on 17 June 1971 for a period of two years, completed training as a supply clerk, was initially assigned to Germany and achieved the rank of private first class.
On 18 November 1971, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for misconduct. His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $62.00 per month for two months.
On 23 February 1972, he was promoted to private first class.
On 25 July 1972, NJP was imposed against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) for the period 29 June to 8 July 1972. His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $75.00 per month for two months and extra duty for fourteen consecutive days.
On 17 February 1973, before a special court-martial, the applicant was found guilty of five charges, including: assault, destruction of property, breach of peace, insubordination and disrespect. His punishment consisted of reduction to private, forfeiture of $178.00 for five months and confinement at hard labor for five months. The convening authority approved the sentence, but suspended for a period of six months that portion adjudging confinement at hard labor in excess of three months and forfeitures of pay in excess of three months.
The applicant was ordered to the United States Army Retraining Brigade at Fort Riley, Kansas on 11 March 1973 to begin serving his sentence.
On 10 May 1973, orders were issued transferring the applicant from Fort Riley, Kansas, to Fort Knox, Kentucky.
The applicant was reported AWOL on 3 July 1973 and dropped from the rolls of his unit on 1 August 1973. He was returned to military control on 19 September 1973.
A copy of the applicant’s request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, chapter 10 is not in his records. However, the authority and reason for his discharge indicates that he was separated under the authority of AR 635-200, chapter 10. As is normal in such cases, he would have indicated in his request that he understood he could receive an UOTHC discharge and that he personally made the choice to submit the request for discharge.
On 15 November 1973, the approved recommendation for elimination of the applicant was forwarded to the commander authorized to direct separation.
On 19 November 1973, orders were issued directing the applicant’s reduction to private, his separation and the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
Accordingly, he was discharged with an UOTHC discharge on 26 November 1973 under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. He had served 1 year, 11 months, and 14 days of total active service.
The applicant’s available record contains no evaluations, awards or documents other than the disciplinary actions noted, to indicate the quality of his service.
AR 635-200 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 preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. 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 the consequences of such a request as well as the discharge they might receive. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a UOTHC discharge 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 applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of AR 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 applicant provided no information or justification concerning the circumstances that led to his charges of AWOL. He also provided no information of post service achievements or how the current discharge is adversely affecting him.
3. The applicant’s records contain no evidence and he has provided no evidence to support his contention that he served honorably for 18 months. The applicant could have chosen to present his argument before a court-martial, but instead, he voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service apparently in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a felony conviction on his records. In doing so, he admitted guilt to the charges against him. While he may now believe that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date, especially considering the seriousness of the offenses of which he was convicted.
4. It appears that the applicant elected to take the option of requesting an administrative discharge rather than risking the possibility of a greater sentence at trial. There is no evidence to show that he was coerced by anyone into making this choice.
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
__kan__ __reb____ __rjw ___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001056854 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011025 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 689 | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076721C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. There is no record that the applicant ever submitted a request for review of his discharge by the Army Discharge Review Board within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. The Board notes that the available evidence shows that the applicant voluntarily requested separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069956C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 26 November 1973, the applicant submitted an appeal to the punishment of the Article 15 proceedings, dated 10 October 1973. In reviewing the applicant’s record, the Board noted his record of indiscipline, to include nonjudicial punishments and a special court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071810C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a more favorable discharge. The commanding general approved his request on 3 August 1973 and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068225C070402
In support of his application, the applicant submitted copies of his honorable discharges, DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record), Immunization records, and a letter to his congressman requesting help in getting his discharge upgraded. He was credited with 3 years, 6 months, and 2 days of honorable military service and 12 months of Vietnam service from 15 January 1969 thru 14 January 1970. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013109
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable or general discharge. On 30 July 1975, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10 (Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial), Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel), and understood that he could request discharge for the good of the service because charges had been preferred against him under the UCMJ which authorized the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080880C070215
and recommended a general discharge. The immediate commander again recommended approval of the applicant's request with a general discharge. On 1 November 1973 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request to upgrade the discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002537C070206
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 September 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050002537 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant was discharged on 30 August 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service with an undesirable discharge. He had completed 2 years and 2 months and 11...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070011486
On 16 March 1972, the FSM voluntarily submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service. The characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and the evidence shows that the FSM was aware of that prior to requesting discharge. ____x______ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20070011486 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED TYPE OF DISCHARGE UD DATE OF DISCHARGE 19720424 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR 635-200, Chapter 10 DISCHARGE REASON BOARD...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001066187C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The ADRB denied his request on 7 November 1974. 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 preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067842C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He had served 1 year, 8 months and 28 days of total active service and had 97 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement. 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...