| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Beverly A. Young | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) or an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was married with a three-month old baby when he was drafted. He also states that he was very unhappy, was concerned about his wife and child, and was absent without leave (AWOL) to take care of them financially. He now realizes that he should not have done this and that he should have used better judgement. He further states that he is now self-employed, a responsible citizen and a grandfather, and was previously a plant superintendent. In support of his application, he submitted a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant was inducted in the Army on 22 March 1971 and was assigned to Fort Jackson, South Carolina, for basic combat training. On 30 March 1971, the applicant was AWOL from his basic training unit and was dropped from the unit rolls on 28 April 1971. He was apprehended by civilian authorities, transferred to the county jail, and returned to military control on 31 May 1971.
Records show the applicant was AWOL again on 1 June 1971 and returned to military control on 21 January 1972.
On 22 January 1972, charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 30 March 1971 to 21 January 1972.
On 24 January 1972, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offenses charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration if an undesirable discharge were issued. The applicant did not submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 29 January 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed issuance of an undesirable discharge.
The applicant was discharged on 9 February 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had 1 month and 27 days of creditable service and 294 days of lost time due to AWOL.
Prior to his discharge, the applicant underwent a separation medical examination and was found fit for separation with a physical profile of 111111.
There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.
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 an undesirable discharge.
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 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.
2. There is no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights or that his request for a chapter 10 discharge was made under coercion or duress.
3. The Board considered the applicant’s contention that he was AWOL so he could take care of his family. However, this issue is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
4. Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reason for his separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
5. 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.
6. 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
LLS_____ JTM_____ MHM____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001058529 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010906 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19720209 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200,chapter 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | For the Good of the Service |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002103C070206
On 26 February 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued an undesirable discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 22 March 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. The applicant’s record of service included five nonjudicial punishments and 171 days of lost time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075521C070403
The Board considered the following evidence: On 3 April 1972, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 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 | CY2006 | 20060017692
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. On 31 May 1972, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 14 June 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081496C070215
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. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The Board determined that the applicant’s overall military service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel sufficient to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065300C070421
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004521C070206
The applicant requests that his records be corrected by upgrading his undesirable discharge to honorable. On 28 June 1972, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge request and directed his reduction to the lowest enlisted grade with the issuance of an undesirable discharge. At the time of the applicant’s separation, the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge, characterized as under other than honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050016765C070206
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 27 JULY 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050016765 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 requests that his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge to general. On 4 October 1972, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, with an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100415C070208
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 24 March 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued an undesirable discharge. The applicant’s record of service included a bar to reenlistment, five nonjudicial punishments, two special court-martial convictions and 239 days of lost time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080948C070215
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130022373
On 26 January 1972, consistent with the chain of command's recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for voluntary discharge for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by a court-martial in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and directed that be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade, if applicable, and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 28 January 1972, the applicant was accordingly discharged. _______ _ x _______...