| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Walter Avery, Jr. | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern | Member | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he wishes to have his discharge upgraded so that he may receive medical care.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 October 1972, for a period of three years, at age of 19, with 11 years of education, for training as a radio specialist.
On 7 June 1973, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 9 May to 1 June 1973. His punishment consisted of forty days extra duty and restriction and forfeiture of $50.00 per month for two months suspended for two months.
On 18 December 1973, a court-martial charge was preferred against the applicant for AWOL from 27 October to 10 December 1973. After consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation from the Army for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
Thereafter, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He indicated in the request that he understood that if his request was accepted he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He indicated that he also understood that as a result of the issuance of such a discharge, he may be deprived of many or all Army, Veterans Affairs, and Federal and State benefits. He acknowledged by his signature that he had consulted with counsel who had fully advised him in this matter.
In a statement supporting his request for discharge, he stated that he had enlisted for training as a radio specialist. He reported for training but for nine months was unable to train because he was ineligible for a security clearance. A background check had revealed that prior to enlistment he had been committed to a mental institution. During the nine-months he was awaiting training, he claims that two psychiatrists examined him and recommended him for discharge; instead, he was transferred to Fort Sill, Oklahoma, for training in another specialty. He says that he was raised mostly in reform schools and detention homes prior to joining the Army. He also said that he had a wife and a baby, but could not afford to have them near him, which was very important to him. He could not adjust to military life and wanted the discharge so he could govern his own life.
The appropriate authority approved his request for discharge on 11 January 1974, and directed that an Undesirable Discharge Certificate be issued.
Accordingly, he was discharged on 15 January 1974, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service.
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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions 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’s explanation that he lived in reform schools and could not adjust to the military is not sufficiently persuasive enough to upgrade his discharge. Furthermore, he has provided no information concerning post service achievements that would help in justifying a discharge upgrade.
3. The applicant’s records contain no evidence and he has provided no evidence to support his contention that he was recommended for discharge by two psychiatrists. At the time, 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 so doing, 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. Additionally, the Board does not upgrade discharges merely to qualify an applicant for a benefit or program.
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
___le ____ ___jns___ ___tbr _ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001058562 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011520 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 110.02 | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003731C070206
On 21 March 1974, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. Evidence of record shows that on 28 February 1974, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service and indicated in his request that he had not been subjected to coercion. The applicant’s record of service included one nonjudicial punishment and 59 days of lost time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070662C070402
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: APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003758
Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, at the time an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate. It was not the first time he was AWOL. _______ _ __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 | CY2014 | 20140003758
Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, at the time an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate. It was not the first time he was AWOL. _______ _ __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 | 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 | CY2003 | 2003087374C070212
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 either an honorable or general discharge. The applicant advised the agents at the time that he would go AWOL again if he was not discharged.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007784
The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable or a general discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate at the time of the applicants discharge. ____________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 | CY2008 | 20080005605
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general or an honorable discharge. On 11 May 1973, the applicant's commander recommended that the applicant be discharged from the Army with an undesirable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085455C070212
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 (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. APPLICANT STATES : That he was told his UD would automatically be upgraded to that of an honorable discharge within 90 days of his separation date.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060006875C070205
On 8 November 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 12 November 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge or a general discharge.