| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: The applicant makes no statement about his discharge. However, he asks many questions concerning entries on his Enlisted Qualification Record, DA Forms 2 and 2-1, such as why an entry is crossed out or why the entry in one item does not match the entry in another item. He also questions his date of rank on his Report of Separation from Active Duty, DD Form 214, (why he was demoted while he was on leave), and why item 21 (time lost) does not agree with his DA Form 2-1 and how he got 47 days excess leave. He provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 October 1974. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 44C (Welder).
The applicant departed absent without leave (AWOL) from 10 – 11 March 1975.
On 23 March 1975, the applicant signed into the 584th Maintenance Company, Fort Campbell, KY. He requested leave because of marriage problems. He departed on excess leave on 24 March 1975 to return on 5 April 1975. He
was reported AWOL on 5 April 1975 and was apprehended by civilian authorities on 28 July 1975.
On 5 August 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with AWOL for the period 5 April to on or about 28 July 1975.
The applicant completed a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation.
On 5 August 1975, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. He submitted a statement in his own behalf. He stated that he went AWOL because he could not afford to take his family to Fort Campbell with him. He tried getting stationed closer to home but that did not work out.
On 8 August 1975, the applicant was placed on excess leave.
On 19 August 1975, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.
On 11 September 1975, the applicant was discharged with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had completed 6 months and 19 days of creditable active service. His DD Form 214, item 21 shows that he had 116 days of lost time. His DA Form 2-1, item 21 shows that he had 116 days of lost time (one period of 2 days AWOL, one period of 30 days AWOL, and one period of 84 days dropped from the rolls).
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. A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.
Army Regulation 600-8-19 prescribes the enlisted promotions and reductions function of the military personnel system. In pertinent part, it states that when the separation authority determines that a soldier is to be discharged from the Service under other than honorable conditions, he will be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.
Army Regulation 630-5 prescribes policies governing various types of authorized absences. In pertinent part, it states that the general court martial authority may authorize soldiers awaiting completion of administrative discharge proceedings an indefinite period of excess leave. The Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation states that members in an excess leave status are not entitled to pay and allowances.
Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1552, authorizes the Secretary of the Army to correct any Army military record when the Secretary considers it necessary to correct an error or remove an injustice.
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.
3. The applicant was properly reduced to Private, E-1 on 19 August 1975, the date the approval authority approved his discharge UOTHC. His being on excess leave at the time was immaterial. He was on 12 days excess leave from 24 March – 4 April 1975 at his request and 35 days excess leave pending completion of his discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.
4. The Board’s function is to correct an error or injustice in a member’s military records. It is not an investigative agency. If the applicant had questions concerning entries on his DA Forms 2 and 2-1, the time to question those entries was while he was on active duty. If he believes there is an error in his records, he should state what the error is, what the correction should be, and provide evidence to support his contention.
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
__jns___ __rtd___ __dph___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001059745 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010828 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19750911 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, ch 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A70.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063263C070421
The Board considered the following evidence: 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: The Board must conclude that the applicant's commander, using the information available to him at that time, properly considered and accepted the applicant's request for discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075308C070403
On 30 April 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded 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: There is no evidence to show that he made his command or any other agency aware of any personal problems or that he attempted to resolve his problems in an administratively acceptable manner (e.g., a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065178C070421
Accordingly, on 2 November 1984, the applicant was discharged from the Army after completing 5 years, 3 months, and 23 days of creditable military service and accruing 293 days of lost time. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000350C070205
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 31 August 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060000350 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. On 20 October 1976 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge. A punitive discharge is authorized for offenses under Article 86, for periods of AWOL in excess of 30 days.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005965
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The report evaluated the applicants performance as a field wireman at Fort Sill and noted that in five of the six evaluated categories he was rated as AA (above average). The applicant argues that he was forced to go AWOL after being falsely accused of being AWOL by his unit first sergeant following a weekend absence.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065298C070421
This action was taken by Fort Bragg, in spite of the fact that the applicant had clearly been present for duty at the PCF, Fort Knox, for eight months and had successfully completed a rehabilitation program. A Personnel Action (DA Form 4187), dated 19 October 1999, prepared by the PCF, Fort Knox, changed the applicant’s duty status from present for duty to AWOL, effective 15 October 1999, and on 29 December 1999, the applicant returned to military control at the PCF, Fort Knox. However, it...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058208C070421
He did not return from leave and was reported AWOL from 17 September 1974 to 24 January 1975. On 14 December 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079497C070215
The applicant’ Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains a Request and Authority for Leave (DA Form 31), dated 25 June 1991. It provides the following specific instructions for the items in question: Item 4 (a & b), enter the active grade or rank and pay grade at the time of separation; Item 6 (Reserve Obligation Termination Date), enter “00 00 00” for soldiers discharged, dismissed, or dropped from the Army rolls or with and expired military service obligation; Item 11 (Primary...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010183C070208
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 August 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20040010183 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. On 5 November 1975, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service and directed that the applicant be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. However, the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071854C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: He stated that he was proud of his Vietnam service but was ashamed of the conduct which led to his court-martial and to his present situation.