| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Ms. JoAnn H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Mark D. Manning | Member | |
| Mr. Jose A. Martinez | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was needed at home to take of his mother who had been diagnosed with cancer. He further states that he is ashamed of his discharge because his two brothers and father all served honorably in the military.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant’s military records show:
On 5 May 1972, he entered the Army for 3 years. He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training (AIT), was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 36K (Wireman), and was assigned to Hawaii for his first permanent duty station.
There are no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition documented in the applicant’s record and it confirms the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private (E-2). It also contains a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the absent without leave (AWOL) related misconduct that led to his discharge.
On 7 September 1972, while still in AIT, the applicant accepted NJP for failing to go to his appointed place of duty. On 7 January 1973, he failed to report for his port call and was declared AWOL. He remained away for 32 days until returning to military control on 8 February 1973.
On 26 February 1973, a court-martial charge was preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 7 January to 8 February 1973. The applicant consulted legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by
court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment, and the effects of a discharge for the good of the service. The applicant voluntarily requested to be discharged for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by court-martial.
On 8 March 1973, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request and directed he be issued a UD and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. Accordingly, on 16 March 1973 the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by court-martial. At the time of his discharge he had completed only
9 months and 10 days of creditable active military service and he had accrued
32 days of time lost due to AWOL.
There is no evidence to show the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue 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 UD.
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 contention that his mother’s illness caused his AWOL related misconduct but finds this factor alone is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.
2. The evidence of record shows the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. The Board notes that after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, he admitted guilt to the stipulated offense under the UCMJ.
3. The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Finally, the Board finds the applicant’s characterization of service was appropriate based on his undistinguished overall record of service.
4. 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.
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
__JHL___ __MDM__ __JAM__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001059879 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/10/11 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19730316 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, CH 10. . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | For the Good of the Service |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 70.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065555C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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 Board notes the applicant’s contentions that his discharge was unjust, his recruiter...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710592
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. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068610C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 9 June 1976, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge after determining that he had been properly discharged. 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 | CY2003 | 2003088098C070403
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. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711741
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: 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 are preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court martial. The Board found no evidence of record or independent evidence submitted by the applicant which supported his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071415C070402
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 honorable. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
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 | CY1997 | 9709944
His second period of AWOL began on 20 November 1971 and ended on 5 January 1972. On 11 June 1979 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade to his discharge.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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076030C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations in effect at the time and that the type of discharge he received accurately reflects his overall record of service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077142C070215
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: The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.