| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Rosa M. Chandler | Analyst |
| Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Elzey J. Arledge | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was drafted into the Army. While he was assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, he became stressed out and left his unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status when he received a letter from his wife stating that she was leaving him. He does not believe that the actions that he took warrant the type of discharge that he received.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
That on 5 February 1969, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States. After completing all required military training and being awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 12A, (Pioneer), he was assigned to Fort Gordon, Georgia.
On 19 July 1969, the applicant left his unit in an AWOL status. During the time that he was AWOL, he was in civil confinement from 19 August 1969 to 16 September 1969. The reason for the civil confinement is not a matter of record. He returned to military control at the Fort Gordon Personnel Control Facility (PCF) on 18 September 1969.
The applicant departed AWOL again from 21 September 1969-1 May 1970. He was returned to military control at the PCF on 1 May 1970. On 2 July 1970, while assigned to the PCF, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 19 July-19 August 1969 and 21 September 1969-1 May 1970. He was sentenced to forfeiture of $50.00 pay per month for 3 months, and to confinement at hard labor for 3 months.
The applicant was AWOL from his unit from 27 July 1970-3 February 1971. He was in military confinement from 3 February-29 March 1971. On 30 March 1971, he was returned to duty.
On 11 February 1971, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 27 July 1970-3 February 1971. On 3 March 1971, he consulted with legal counsel and 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. He was advised that he could receive a UD. He acknowledged that he understood the ramifications of receiving a UD. He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 11 March 1971, the applicant underwent a physical examination and he was determined to be qualified for separation.
On 16 March 1971, the applicant’s unit commander recommended that his request for discharge be approved with a UD. On 24 March 1971, his intermediate commander recommended separation with a UD. On 26 March 1971, the separation authority approved separation with a UD.
On 1 April 1971, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UD. He had completed 5 months and 16 days of active military service. He also had 562 days lost time due to AWOL and confinement. Fifty-six days were lost subsequent to his normal expiration term of service date.
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. However, at the time of the applicant's separation, the regulation provided for the issuance of a UD.
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. 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.
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 for discharge were appropriate considering the facts of the case.
3. The applicant's conduct was inconsistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and his overall quality of service does not warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
4. There is no indication that the applicant's AWOLs were due to personal problems. However, even if such were the case, the applicant had many other avenues through which he could have obtained assistance without committing the misconduct that led to 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
___DSJ _ __EJA___ __DPH__ DENY APPLICATION
INDEX
| CASE ID | AR2001058344 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011106 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19700709 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, CH10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A71.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.7100 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076798C070215
On 24 February 1969, he went AWOL and he remained in an AWOL status until he returned to military control at Fort Hood on 6 March 1969. On 30 November 1972, the applicant's chain of command denied his request for separation for the good of the service and indicated that he should be tried by a court-martial authorized to direct a bad conduct discharge. On the same date, the applicant was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008974
Following consult with legal counsel, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. Therefore, he was requesting a discharge for the good of the service. On 31 January 1974 and 8 January 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge and determined his discharge was both proper and appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018023
The applicant requests his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) and three medical documents. Paragraph 11-1a of the version of the regulation in effect at that time, stated that an enlisted person would be receive a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general court-martial imposing a bad conduct discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086229C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058577C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. He did not complete his airborne training and received orders transferring him to Fort Lewis, Washington with a report date of 25 April 1971.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001252
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions, Undesirable Discharge (UD), be upgraded. 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-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011104
The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. On 3 June 1971, the applicant's commander advised him that he intended to recommend him for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations Discharge Unfitness and Unsuitability) for his total apathy in regard to military authority and his frequent periods of AWOL. He further acknowledged he understood if his discharge request were accepted, he might be discharged...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052362C070420
He was honorably discharged from this period of service on 12 January 1968. The applicant was transferred from Fort Campbell to Fort Bragg, North Carolina where he served as a vehicle driver in the 82 nd Airborne Division until he was honorably discharged on 12 January 1968 in pay grade E-5. On 22 January 1970, while he was assigned to Fort Bragg, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years in pay grade E-4.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083983C070212
The applicant went AWOL while assigned to the MHC. He had completed 1 year, 2 months, and 4 days of active military service and he had 328 days of lost time due to being AWOL and in military confinement. There is no evidence the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge under that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083912C070212
On the same date, the separation authority approved separation under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200 with a UD. On 19 February 1975, as a result of a records review, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. However, at the time of the applicant's separation, the regulation provided for the issuance of a UD.