| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Joyce A. Wright | Analyst |
| Ms. Jennifer L. Prater | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: That his discharge was unjust because he was young and immature and that his personal problems were the substantial reasons which led to his discharge. In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty), a personal statement, two certificates, and one character reference.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
At the age of 19, the applicant was inducted on 10 November 1968, as a light weapons infantryman and was assigned to Fort Lewis, Washington.
The applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows that he was AWOL from 28 May to 11 June 1969 (15 days).
He was convicted by a special court-martial on 28 July 1970, of being AWOL from 15 August to 16 December 1969 (96 days), from 17 to 25 February
1970 (8 days), and from 17 March to 21 June 1970 (96 days). His sentence consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and confinement at hard labor for 90 days.
On 15 October 1970, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being AWOL from 9 to 15 October 1970 (6 days).
His DA Form 20 also shows that he went AWOL from 12 November to 10 December 1970 (29 days), 11 to 29 December 1970 (19 days), and
pretrial confinement from 31 December 1970 to 4 February 1971 (36 days).
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 22 February 1971, 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
2 years, 4 months, and 19 days of creditable service and had 334 days of lost
time due to AWOL and confinement.
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.
The applicant provides a character reference letter from an employer which states that he has a solid record of achievement and is a volunteer firefighter.
He is a model employee and an asset to any employer. He also provides a certificate to show that he was ordained a minister on 11 July 1996.
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 contention that his discharge was unjust because he was young and immature; however, evidence of record shows that he entered active duty at the age of 19. Evidence also shows that he was AWOL six times and confined for a total of 334 days. Therefore, his age is not sufficiently mitigating in this case to warrant relief due to his numerous acts of indiscipline.
2. The Board notes the applicant’s contention and that his personal problems were the substantial reasons which led to his discharge; 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.
3. The Board notes the applicant’s post service achievements; however, these achievements are not reasons to upgrade his discharge.
4. 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.
5. The type of separation directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.
6. 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.
7. 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
__jp___ __rs____ ___mm___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001060049 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011120 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19710222 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C, 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012458
His DD Form 214 shows he had completed 6 months and 26 days of creditable active service and he had 505 days of lost time due to being AWOL and in confinement. There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001823
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 23 April 1970, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for AWOL (7 days). On 22 August 1973, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003735C070206
This form also shows that the applicant was held in civil confinement by the Texas Department of Correction from 7 April 1968 through 5 March 1970, the date of his discharge. On 16 February 1970, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, by reason of misconduct (civil conviction), and directed that the applicant receive an undesirable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004570
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. On 1 February 1971, the applicant was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021569
The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. The applicant was AWOL again from on or about 14 September 1971 to on or about 7 August 1974. The applicant contends that his undesirable discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge because he served in the RVN and he had a good service record before going AWOL.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707137C070209
MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 6 May 1998 DOCKET NUMBER: AC97-07137 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. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006212
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The applicant's personnel record shows he received 3 NJPs and was convicted by special courts-martial on 2 separate occasions. He underwent both a mental and physical examination at the time of his separation and he indicated that his health was good and failed to make any comments to either medical examiner that he had an alcohol and/or drug problem.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067609C070402
The Board considered the following evidence: This program, known as the DOD Discharge Review Program (Special) (SDRP) required, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, that a discharge upgrade to either honorable or general be issued in the case of any individual who had either completed a normal tour of duty in Southeast Asia, been wounded in action, been awarded a military decoration other than a service medal, had received an honorable discharge from a previous period of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080002C070215
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show he was inducted on 1 August 1968, as a field artilleryman. On 22 March 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The evidence of record shows that he was attached pending approval/disapproval of his request for a hardship discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008501
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 August 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080008501 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. However, he was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate on 10 December 1971 in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service. However, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of court-martial and acknowledged at that time that he could receive an undesirable discharge and the effects of an undesirable discharge.