| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Beverly A. Young | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John P. Infante | Member | |
| Mr. William D. Powers | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be recharacterized to a general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was told his discharge would be changed to a general under honorable conditions discharge after six months. In support of his application, he submits two DD Forms 214 (Armed Forces of United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted in the Army on 29 October 1966 for a period of three years. He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training and served in Germany as a field wireman. He was honorably discharged on 1 July 1969 for immediate reenlistment. He served another tour in Germany and was honorably discharged on 29 November 1970 for immediate reenlistment. He served in Vietnam and was advanced to the rank of sergeant in November 1970.
Nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant on four separate occasions between March 1970 and October 1972 for being absent from his place of duty, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty, and for violating a lawful general regulation.
Charges were preferred against the applicant on 18 October 1972 for seven specifications of failing to go to his appointed place of duty, for being AWOL for three days, for disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer, and for failing to obey a lawful order issued by his unit commander.
On 24 October 1972, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offenses charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration if an undesirable discharge were issued. The applicant submitted statements in his own behalf.
Prior to his discharge, the applicant underwent a separation medical examination and a mental status evaluation and was found fit for separation.
On 24 November 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
The applicant was discharged on 29 November 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had 1 year, 11 months and 25 days of creditable service on his current enlistment with 4 days of lost time due to AWOL. He completed 6 years and 26 days total active military service.
On 12 March 1974, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge to honorable.
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.
The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable. The Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically state that no factors should be established which would require automatic change or denial of a change in 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 noted the applicant’s contention that he was advised that his discharge would be upgraded to general in six months. However, there is no policy or regulation within the Army which allows automatic upgrading of discharges.
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.
3. There is no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights or that his request for a chapter 10 discharge was made under coercion or duress.
4. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for his separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
5. 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.
6. 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
RVO____ JPI_____ WDP_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001062418 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011129 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19721129 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200,chapter 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | For the Good of the Service |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060017692
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. On 31 May 1972, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 14 June 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075521C070403
The Board considered the following evidence: On 3 April 1972, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052241C070420
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 corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. Also in the available...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057408C070420
On 14 November 1972, after consulting with counsel about his rights, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. 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: The Board believes that the applicant's overall service record was considered...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050006029C070206
On 29 March 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive an Undesirable Discharge. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002183C070206
On 27 October 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 24 November 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064598C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 27 September 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. The Board also determined that the applicant’s military record which included two nonjudicial punishments, one special court-martial conviction and 245 days lost was not satisfactory.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073306C070403
The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show that he was honorably discharged and that his social security account number (SSAN) and date of entry are incorrect. The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Army on 25 March 1969 and was honorably separated on 28 April 1970, in pay grade E-3, for the purpose of reenlisting on 29 April 1970. The Board notes that the applicant was almost 21 years of age at the time of his application for discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060095C070421
The Board considered the following evidence: On 12 November 1980, 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710636
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: He was convicted by a special court-martial on 20 April 1971 and was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 3 months, reduced to the pay grade of E-1, and a forfeiture of pay.