| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman | Member | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That his character of discharge resulted from an incident with an enlisted member’s wife. He was an officer at the time of the affair; however, he denied any knowledge that the female was married and still insists he did not know of her marriage. He also contends that he was informed that his discharge could later be upgraded. In support of his application, he submits a letter of explanation, dated 12 April 2001; a DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States) with an effective date of 11 September 1956; a DD Form 214 with an effective date of 7 February 1955; a copy of a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214), dated 9 May 1962; and three character reference letters.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records were destroyed or lost during the National Personnel Records Center fire of 1973. Records available to the Board were obtained from alternate sources and show the applicant served as an enlisted member in the Regular Army prior to his commission as a second lieutenant on 8 February 1955.
The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not contained in the available records. However, his DD Form 214 with an effective date of 11 September 1956 shows that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 11 September 1956 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-120, paragraph 4, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial.
There is no indication in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-120, in effect at the time, governed officer separations and provided policies and procedures for separating officers from active duty. Paragraph 4 of this regulation provided that an officer may submit a resignation for the good of the service in lieu of trial when his conduct rendered him triable by court-martial for an offense punishable by dismissal; or if the officer is under suspended sentence of dismissal. The regulation provided that a resignation for the good of the service, when approved by the Department of the Army, normally would be accepted as being under other than honorable conditions.
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 Board considered the applicant’s contention that he had no knowledge that he was committing an offense. However, there is no evidence of record, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support this contention.
2. The Board considered the applicant’s contention that he was informed that his discharge could later be upgraded. However, an upgrade is not automatic and there is no evidence which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade within the 15-year statute of limitations.
3. The Board also considered the three character reference letters provided in support of the applicant’s claim. However, good post service conduct alone is not a basis for upgrading a discharge.
4. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-120, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.
5. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation appear to be appropriate.
6. 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.
7. 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
RVO____ DPH____ RKS_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001058414 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011016 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19560911 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-120 Paragraph 4 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | For the good of the service in lieu of trial |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0200 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072695C070403
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000865C070208
This case is being considered using reconstructed records, which primarily consist of the applicant’s separation document (DD Form 214). The applicant’s contentions that his discharge was unjust, that he should be eligible for veterans’ benefits and the supporting documents he submitted were carefully considered. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074512C070403
The applicant’s military records show that on 18 August 1955, he was discharged UOTHC under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-120, by reason of resignation for the good of the service. The examining psychiatrist concluded by stating that whether the applicant would be able to realize the potential he unquestionably had would depend a great deal on the humane and judicious treatment of his situation at that time. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that his discharge should be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018824
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. Therefore, there is no evidence that the applicant was being considered for promotion at the time of his discharge on 21 April 1961.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070006378
Army Regulation 635-89, in effect at the time, required the separation of individuals who voluntarily participated in homosexual acts. On 25 January 1956, the appropriate authority directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-89 and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was charged with sodomy and that he accepted an Undesirable Discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000808
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 1 August 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130000808 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The evidence of record shows he voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, requested resignation from the Army for the good of the service in lieu of trial by a general court-martial. _______ _ __x_____ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040007996C070208
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The application submitted in this case is dated 13 September 2004. On 31 May 1983, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 5 of Army Regulation 635-120, conduct triable by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000556
On 15 September 1993, the applicant's RFGOS was approved under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-120 (Officer Resignations and Discharges), chapter 5, with an under other than honorable conditions character of service. d. paragraph 8, states "records show the applicant submitted his resignation for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. (2) counsel states the applicant made no request to resign or be separated in his RFGOS, but instead stated that he would prefer to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021922
On 4 April 1995, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant submitted a request for resignation for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-120, chapter 5, in lieu of trial by court-martial. At the time, Army Regulation 635-120 served as the authority for the resignation of officers for the good of the service. It states an officer may submit a resignation for the good of the service when court-martial charges have been preferred against the officer...
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080019453
On 16 October 1995, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards/EEO Complaints) approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board and directed that the applicant be discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The appropriate authority approved the applicant's request and issuance of an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form...