| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Mr. George D. Paxson | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas A. Pagan | Member | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: He developed an alcohol problem while on active duty. However, he didn’t know that treatment was available for alcoholism, and he was not offered any treatment by his command. Since his discharge he has attended three alcohol and drug treatment programs, one in 1983, one in 1997, and one in 2000.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 November 1974 and was awarded the military occupational specialty of tactical wire operations specialist.
He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on eight occasions, two for failure to obey lawful orders, one for being absent without leave, one for having a blade in his room, one for failure to obey and for disobeying a lawful command, one for failure to go to his appointed place of duty, one for failure to go to his appointed place of duty and for disobeying a lawful command, and one for breaking restriction and AWOL.
On 30 March 1977, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for disobeying a lawful order, for being disrespectful in language to his first sergeant, for being drunk and disorderly in quarters, and for breaking restriction.
On 11 April 1977, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial for the good of the service.
The applicant’s request was approved by the appropriate authority and he was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate on 27 April 1977, under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10.
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 undesirable discharge.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The applicant has not claimed that there were any errors in his discharge process and the Board does not find any errors.
2. While the applicant may have developed a drinking problem while he was in the service, that would not excuse his acts of misconduct. Therefore, even if he had sought and received treatment for alcoholism while he was in the service, it would not have prevented his command from preferring charges against him for the offenses which formed the basis for his request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.
3. 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
__gdp ___ __tap___ ___mhm_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001061328 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020221 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | A71.00 |
| 2. | A93.01 |
| 3. | A93.19 |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076280C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___tbr ___ ___rvo___ ___dhp _ DENY APPLICATION Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military Records INDEX |CASE ID |AR | |SUFFIX | | |RECON...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010992C070208
The applicant requests that his military records be corrected to show his upgraded discharge. On 16 March 1970, the appropriate separation authority approved the discharge request and directed the issuance of an undesirable discharge. On 14 July 1977, the applicant’s discharge was upgraded to general under the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084642C070212
The applicant submitted two requests to the Army Discharge Review Board asking that his discharge be upgraded. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded: However, the applicant himself stated in his request for discharge that he had no problems in the Army until his arrival in Alaska.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | R20050000808C070206
The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged on 25 June 1974, under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. There is no evidence in the available records which shows that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitation. The period of service under consideration includes a nonjudicial punishment,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009525
He further acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request were accepted, he may be discharged under conditions other than honorable and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Chapter 10, of the version in effect at the time, provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial charges were preferred. At...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077296C070215
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. On 22 January 1975, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge. The Board also noted the applicant received five nonjudicial punishments, two special courts-martial, and was AWOL for over 600 days after returning from Vietnam.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057474C070420
On 21 February 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge. The evidence of record shows that the applicant had not served honorably up until the time of the incident for which he was discharged. The Board is cognizant of the fact that the applicant was 17 years old at the time of his enlistment.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016264
The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation or Record of Service) he was issued at the time shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by a court-martial with an under other than honorable discharge. He was discharged because he elected to be discharged. _______ _ _x______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060048C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The request was denied. The applicant’s records were thoroughly searched, but failed to show any documented evidence other than the applicant’s statement to support his allegation that he was to receive a hardship discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074704C070403
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. It required the establishment of uniform published standards which did not provide for automatically granting or denying a discharge upgrade for any case or class of cases. The Board reviewed the applicant's record of service which included five nonjudicial punishments, a summary court-martial, a special court-martial, and 387...