| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Walter Avery, Jr. | Analyst |
| Ms. June Hajjar | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Member | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the Under Conditions Other Than Honorable (UCOTH) characterization of his discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that when he entered the Army, from Puerto Rico, he did not understand, write, or speak English. Soon after entering basic training his inability to understand English caused him to misunderstand and oversleep. The sergeant who discovered him sleeping reacted by becoming very upset, turning his bed over, hitting him and throwing away his belongings. He did not understand what was happening. He soon suffered a nervous breakdown and left the base without authorization. He was later caught, court-martialed and discharged. The Department of Defense sent him to a hospital where he was hospitalized for a month. He has still not overcome this nervous condition. He has been under treatment all of his life and has not been able to maintain a job due to his nervous condition. He is presently disabled and receiving social security benefits.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in Puerto Rico for the Regular Army on 20 December 1971 for a period of two years. At the time of enlistment, the applicant was 23 years old, was married with two dependents, had acquired a General Equivalency Diploma, and had an Armed Forces Qualification Score of 30, which placed him in Mental Category IV (indicating soldiers with slow learning abilities).
On 9 March 1973, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being derelict in his duties (he left his wall locker unlocked). His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $15.00 for one month.
No charge sheet is present, but most likely charges were preferred against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) for the period 13 March 1972 to 8 November 1973.
On 13 November 1973, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He indicated in his request that he understood he could receive a UCOTH discharge. He personally made the choice to submit his request and acknowledged by his signature that he had been fully advised in this matter.
In a statement, accompanying his request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he did not like the Army, that he had to get out of the Army to solve his problems, and that he knew he would get an undesirable discharge and lose his benefits, but he wanted to get home. An interpreter completed the form on his behalf.
A mental status evaluation indicates that the applicant was evaluated as having a “Dull” level of alertness, but was capable of understanding and participating in board proceedings.
On 19 November 1973, his commander recommended that he be eliminated from the service and that he be issued an undesirable discharge.
On 23 November 1973, the appropriate authority approved his request for separation under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10 with an UCOTH discharge and directed the issuance of a DD Form 258A, Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Accordingly, on 3 December 1973, he was discharged.
On 2 August 1976 and 27 October 1978, the Army Discharge Review Board informed the applicant of their denial of his request for an upgrade of 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 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. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
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 considered the applicant’s age, educational level and English language level at the time of enlistment. The applicant met all entrance qualification standards. The Board found no evidence to indicate that he was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation. Further, the Board found no evidence that indicates his level of education or ability to learn in anyway contributed to his misconduct or to his inability to serve.
2. The evidence available indicates that the chapter 10 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
3. There is insufficient evidence in the available records to indicate that the applicant suffered a nervous breakdown in basic training. As indicated above, chapter 10 is a voluntary action on the part of an accused that has been charged with a crime punishable by court-martial and requires counseling by a military attorney before the accused is permitted to request the discharge. The applicant was AWOL for 606 days, an extensive period. A conviction at a court-martial could have possibly resulted in a prison sentence and the permanent stigma of a federal conviction. Therefore, it appears that the applicant requested the administrative discharge he received rather than risk the consequences of a trial by court-martial.
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 satisfies 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
___kak __ __rwa___ ___jh__ DENY APPLICATION
Carl W. S. Chun
Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records
INDEX
| CASE ID | AR2001061756 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020205 |
| 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. . 144.0136 | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010492
On 21 January 1972, the applicant's company commander recommended that the applicant be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability) for unfitness based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities and that an Undesirable Discharge Certificate be issued. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008114
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The DD Form 214 he was issued at that time shows: * his SSN as 145-XX-XXXX * his birth year as 1947 * he completed 6 months and 20 days of net creditable active military service, with 2,326 days of time lost under Title 10, U.S. Code, section 972 * he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 * he was issued a separation program number of 246, denoting he was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026790
On 13 December 1973, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Personnel Separations), chapter 10, for the good of the service. After consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a voluntary request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of court-martial. There is no evidence that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015912
He should have been sent to a medical board and a granted a medical discharge. The objectives of standards was to ensure all Soldiers were physically qualified to perform their duties in a reasonable manner, medical retention qualification standards had been established in Army Regulation 40501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3. His military records also contain no evidence which would entitle him to a medical discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008047
He enlisted and worked hard to always do a good job. While in Kuwait, he called his wife who told him she was cheating on him and that he should forget about her. A warrant officer in the United States Army states that the applicant must have another opportunity to serve his nation because he has always been a "go-to" Soldier who sacrifices his personal time to assist fellow Soldiers.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110006281
On 5 April 1973, 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. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, stated an honorable discharge was a separation with honor. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, stated a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010431
On 6 December 1973, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for one specification of being AWOL during the period from on or about 10 July 1970 until on or about 29 November 1973. In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charges against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a discharge under other honorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022625
The applicant states he was to be court-martialed due to a total nervous breakdown. On 5 April 1977, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge from the Army under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of unsuitability with the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 with a General...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012540
After consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. a. However, there is no evidence that indicates he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The record shows he received treatment for his drug abuse and that he did not have any mental conditions that were found to be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074235C070403
After reviewing the applicant's service record and hearing testimony from his chain of command, the board recommended that the applicant be He had completed 2 years, 10 months, and 20 days of creditable active Federal service on the enlistment under review and he had lost time due to being in confinement. On 23 August 1965, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge after a records review.