| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Rosa M. Chandler | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Member | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That he believes his discharge should be upgraded to reflect the person that he is today.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
That on 1 March 1973, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years. He completed all of the required military training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 1320 (Field Artillery Crewman).
On 18 July 1973, the applicant was assigned to the Panama Canal Zone where he served until January 1975. There is no evidence that he experienced any difficulties during this period of service.
On 26 February 1975, the applicant was assigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma. On 2 April 1975, he was promoted to pay grade E-4, which was the highest pay grade that he achieved.
On 19 May 1975, the applicant left his unit absent without leave (AWOL) and he remained AWOL until he returned to military control at the Personnel Control Facility (PCF), Fort Knox, Kentucky, on 3 August 1975.
On 12 August 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for the above period of AWOL. On 14 August 1975, he consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. He was advised that he could receive a UD. He acknowledged that he understood the ramifications of receiving a UD. He contended in a statement submitted in his own behalf that, prior to enlisting in the Army, he had a job hanging drywall a few days a week. At age 18, he joined the Army so that he would have a better job and be able to travel. However, while serving with his last unit, his feeling about the Army changed; someone was on his back 24 hours a day and he went AWOL because he felt like he had no freedom to express himself. He stated that he had no real problems, but he "hated" the Army's system and he would go AWOL as many times as necessary or until his discharge was approved. He also stated that he became depressed and short tempered when he became worried. Therefore, he felt that a discharge was in the best interest of himself and the Army.
On 15 August 1975, both the applicant’s unit and intermediate commanders recommended that his request for discharge be approved with a UD. On 20 August 1975, the separation authority approved separation with a UD and directed that the applicant be reduced from pay grade E-4 to pay grade E-1.
On 2 September 1975, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UD. He had completed 2 years, 3 months and 18 days of active military service. He also had 76 days of lost time due to being AWOL.
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 a 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. 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. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for discharge were appropriate considering the facts of the case.
3. The applicant's conduct was inconsistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and his overall quality of service does not warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
4. Under normal circumstances, post service conduct does not provide a basis for the upgrade of a characterization of service.
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
__fne___ ___mkm _ ___le____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001060994 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020207 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19750902 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A71.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.7100 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008418
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 16 December 1975, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service and directed that a UD Certificate be issued and that the applicant be reduced to pay grade E-1. The applicant was discharged on 6 January 1976 in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with his service characterized as...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002639
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, stated a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078222C070215
It shows his assignments and clearly indicates that he was assigned to perform duties in MOS 11D. The commander cited the bases for his recommendation were the applicant's AWOL offenses; his punishment record; and the fact that he was very unstable and he had many family problems. On 18 June 1985, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120012122
However, his record contains a DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) that shows he was discharged in pay grade E-1 on 1 October 1975 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Separations), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. There is no evidence he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its statute of limitations. He has provided insufficient evidence or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019314
The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD) to an honorable discharge. On 8 October 1975, after consulting with counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10. 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 | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017260
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 14 November 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicants request for an upgrade of his discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100000066
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 8 January 1975, the applicant's unit commander recommended approval of the applicant's request for discharge with the issuance of a UD Certificate. On 8 January 1975, the applicant's battalion commander recommended approval of the applicant's request for discharge with the issuance of a UD Certificate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021161
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 3 February 1975, after consulting with counsel, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Separations), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. On 9 April 1976, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065840C070421
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 general or medical discharge. He again went AWOL on 28 July 1975 and remained absent until he surrendered to military authorities at Fort Hood on 22 August 1975, where charges were again preferred against him.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017580
The applicant requests his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general discharge. The separation authority could direct a general discharge if such a discharge was merited by the Soldier's overall record. _______ _ X______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.