| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Joyce A. Wright | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That he enlisted at the age of 18 to escape from home after years of physical abuse and did not understand the authority structure of
the military at such a young age. In support of his application he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
At the age of 17, the applicant entered active duty on 29 September 1972
as a field artilleryman.
The applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows that he was AWOL from 19 to 21 October 1972, (2 days) and from 5 to 6 December 1972
(2 days).
Between 12 June and 26 November 1973, the applicant was punished
four times under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failure to be
at his appointed place of duty, AWOL from 14 to 21 June 1973, (7 days), for disobeying a lawful order from his superior noncommissioned officer, and
for disobeying a lawful order from his superior commissioned officer on three occasions. His punishments consisted of a forfeiture of pay, a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, extra duties, and restriction.
The applicant was barred from reenlistment on 19 December 1973, for the
above mentioned offenses.
The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records. However, his DD Form 214 shows that on 7 March 1974, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
He was furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He had a total of
1 year, 5 months, and 20 days of creditable service and had 11 days of lost
time due to AWOL.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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 Board notes the applicant’s contentions; however, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support his contentions or to show that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.
2. The Board also notes that the applicant entered active duty at the age of
17 and had gone AWOL twice, committed two offenses prior to the age of 18, and two offenses after the age of 18. However, his age is not sufficiently mitigating in this case to warrant relief due to his numerous acts of indiscipline.
3. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
4. The type of separation directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the available 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
__ro___ ___rs___ __dh______ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001059266 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011016 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19740307 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C, 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001318C070205
The applicant requests that his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge. On 7 November 1973, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, and directed his reduction to the lowest enlisted grade and the issuance of an undesirable discharge. On 19 April 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075160C070403
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. There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013066
The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable or a general discharge 2. In his request for discharge, the applicant acknowledged he understood that by requesting discharge he understood that if the discharge request was approved, he may be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709513
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.The Board considered the following evidence: 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110012620
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. However, on 11 June 1973, he consulted with counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005197
On 15 May 1973, the applicants immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-206 for misconduct, conviction by civil court. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709949
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. APPLICANT STATES : In...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011735C070208
On 18 February 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 25 April 1973, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable and voted to deny the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. This program, known as the DOD Discharge Review Program (Special) (SDRP), required, in the absence of compelling reasons to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001039
On 19 January 1973, charges were preferred against him for the following offenses: * on or about 14 December 1972, for absenting himself from his place of duty * on or about 15 December 1972, for dereliction of duty * on or about 19 December 1972, for leaving his appointed place of duty without authority * on or about 20 December 1972, for using disrespectful behavior towards a superior commissioned officer * on or about 20 December 1972, for disobeying a lawful order * on or about 18...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009231
On 3 March 1973, he was discharged for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel) and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, an Undesirable Discharge Certificate was normally furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service at the time. Many Soldiers enlisted at a younger age and went on to complete their...