| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member | |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the characterization of his service be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he is enclosing his court-martial papers, highlighting the unjust part. The applicant encloses a copy of a page (paragraph 18. Remarks), of an unidentified document. This document concerns support of this applicant and the Operation 100,000 Program, and a recommendation that the applicant be given a general discharge based on unsuitability or a summary court-martial with a general discharge. The officer signing the document cannot be identified as a member of any unit in which the applicant had served. The applicant also states he wants an honorable discharge and that he would like to receive his benefits.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's available military records show:
On 12 September 1967, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States.
During the period 3 January through 11 April 1968, he was absent without leave (AWOL).
On 3 May 1968, he was convicted by a Special Court-Martial of being AWOL for the period 3 January through 8 April 1968. His sentence included confinement at hard labor (CHL) for 4 months and a forfeiture of $25 pay per month for 4 months. Effective 5 June 1968, the unexecuted portion of his sentence to CHL was suspended for 4 months, unless sooner vacated, and would be remitted.
During the period 8 June through 28 October 1968, he was AWOL.
During the period 12 November 1968 through 26 December 1969, he was AWOL.
During the period 29 December 1969 through 8 January 1970, he was AWOL.
On 7 January 1970, the commander, Special Processing Detachment, Fort Sill, Oklahoma preferred court-martial charges against the applicant for being AWOL for the period 12 November 1968 through 26 December 1969.
During the period 19 January 1970 through 29 June 1971, he was AWOL.
In an undated letter, subject: Certificate of Intent to Initiate a Bar to Enlistment or Reenlistment, the commander of the Personnel Control Facility (PCF), Fort Sill indicated the applicant had previously received a Summary Court-Martial at Fort Sill. Details were not forthcoming and the documentation was not in the available records.
On 29 June 1971, the commander, PCF, Fort Sill preferred court-martial charges against the applicant for being AWOL for the period 19 January 1970 through 29 June 1971.
Although the documentation is not in the available records, evidence shows that after the commander preferred charges for AWOL, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
On 12 August 1971, he received an undesirable discharge under the above-cited regulation. His discharge document indicates he had 5 months and 14 days of creditable service and 1201 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 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.
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.
This Board operates under the standard of presumption of regularity in governmental affairs. The standard states, in effect, that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board must presume that all actions taken by the military were proper. There is nothing in the records or in the evidence submitted by the applicant that overcomes this presumption.
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 applicant chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequence of a court-martial. Although he may now feel that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.
2. The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under 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 evidence provided appears to be the last page of a Line of Duty Investigation; however, it is not possible to determine which, when, or for what offense it was prepared, since it is only a fragment of the document.
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 would satisfy 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
_rvo___ _dph____ _rjw____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001062564 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020409 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058344C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He was in military confinement from 3 February-29 March 1971. On 1 April 1971, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072055C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008974
Following consult with legal counsel, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. Therefore, he was requesting a discharge for the good of the service. On 31 January 1974 and 8 January 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge and determined his discharge was both proper and appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072028C070403
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: Although the specifics are not contained in the available records, his records show that nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him on 9 July 1969 for misconduct and his punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067909C070402
On 23 December 1970, his unit commander preferred court-martial charges against the applicant for being AWOL for the period 28 April to 29 July 1970 and for escaping from lawful confinement on 26 August 1970. 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: It was verified that the family conditions remained the same as when he enlisted 3 months earlier,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086497C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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 applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065903C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Department of the Army, Headquarters, United States Army Field Artillery Center and Fort Sill, Fort Sill, Oklahoma, Special Orders Number 340 reflects that the applicant was discharged by board action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service with a UD. It states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064948C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his general court-martial (GCM) conviction be set aside and his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was adjudged guilty by a court-martial and that the convening authority approved the sentence.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060007407C070205
The applicant requests that the undesirable discharge of her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM), be upgraded to honorable. She also states that the FSM’s brother was just a cook and got his discharge changed and he did not see what the FSM saw in Vietnam. Chapter 10 of the 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 charges have been...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058577C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. He did not complete his airborne training and received orders transferring him to Fort Lewis, Washington with a report date of 25 April 1971.