| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: That about four weeks before his induction the law changed, allowing expectant fathers to be inducted. When he was drafted, he had been married for just three weeks and his wife was expecting their first child. He had no time in which to establish a home for his family. They were staying with his mother who was advanced in years and not capable of supporting others. While in basic training, his wife was pressuring him to come home and stated that she would leave if he did not do so. She threatened to divorce him and never let him see his child. He was granted a leave when his daughter was born. He reported back on time but his wife was still putting extreme pressure on him to come home, whatever the consequences. He brought the situation up to the chaplain and his chain of command but no one seemed sympathetic to his plight. He decided to save his marriage so he left and went home. He has regretted that decision ever since. He has become a productive citizen over the years. He and his wife have raised two daughters both of whom have attended college. He and his wife have assisted veterans and have established the North Carolina Flag Day celebration. He provides a letter from his wife, photographs/articles concerning the Flag Day celebration, and photographs/articles about his family as supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was inducted into the Army on 12 May 1970. He completed basic combat training.
On 21 October 1970, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 19 July to on or about 21 September 1970. He was sentenced to four months confinement at hard labor, suspended.
On 16 June 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with being AWOL from 14 November 1970 to on or about 15 June 1972.
On 27 June 1972, 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 UOTHC and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. The applicant had interviewed with the commander of the U. S. Army Personnel Control Facility, Fort Bragg, NC and stated at that time that he went AWOL due to his marriage problems and that his wife had threatened to leave him if he did not get out of the Army.
On 14 July 1972, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request and directed he receive a discharge UOTHC.
On 31 July 1972, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge UOTHC. He had completed 7 months and 10 days of creditable active service and had a total of 579 days of lost time.
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. 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.
On 4 February 1977, 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:
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 Board is sympathetic with the reasons the applicant gave for going AWOL; however, other soldiers in similar circumstances have successfully completed their terms of service. The applicant made a voluntary decision to go AWOL and a voluntary decision to request discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. He was aware of what the consequences of his decision would be. While the Board has taken cognizance of his good post-service conduct, this factor does not warrant the relief requested.
4. 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
__cla___ __clg___ __dph___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001060505 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010911 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19720731 |
| 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 | CY2008 | 20080005378
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. DA Form 2627-2 (Record of Appellate or Other Supplementary Actions Under Article 15, UCMJ), dated 12 February 1973, shows that the punishment in excess of 5 days of correctional custody was remitted. DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 26 June 1973, shows that the applicant was charged with three specifications of violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ for unauthorized absence from his place of duty for the periods of on or about 2 April 1973...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059591C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. When he returned to Fort Lewis, WA he was told he would be returned to Vietnam. On 17 March 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009359
The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a more favorable discharge. The applicant states he completed his training and was assigned to Korea. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080004570
His records do not show any significant acts of valor during his military service. Item 44 (Time Lost Under Section 972, Title 10, United States Code) of the applicant DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows the applicant was reported absent without leave (AWOL) during the periods 23 January 1970 to 27 February 1970; 2 May 1971 to 2 June 1971; 6 December 1971 to 20 January 1972; 13 March 1972 to 19 March 1972; and 16 April 1972 to 7 May 1972. On 5 June 1972, the separation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110012977
He states: * he needs these codes changed so he can enlist in the Army * his discharge was upgraded from under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to uncharacterized * his wife was very ill with lupus at the time and she was unable to care for herself and their children 3. Army Regulation 635-200 states that individuals will be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge prior to discharge or release from active duty. The applicant's request that his RE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075057C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the undesirable discharge of her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM) be upgraded to a more favorable discharge. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007030
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). He stated that considering the applicant's Vietnam service and the absence of any civilian offenses, he requested the applicant receives the appropriate discharge. Despite a court-martial conviction and two instances of Article 15 for being AWOL, the applicant went AWOL a third time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080009566
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states that he made a mistake but he was a good and honorable Soldier. On 9 April 1974, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with an undesirable discharge and a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008717
Following consultation with legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. In his request for discharge he indicated the following: a. The applicant's DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010585
Records also show he went AWOL on 28 September 1972 and was returned to military control on 3 November 1972. In his request for discharge, he acknowledged he understood by requesting discharge he understood if the discharge request was approved, he may be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The applicant's contention that his undesirable discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge was carefully considered and it...