| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Mr. Terry L. Placek | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his discharge be upgraded to an honorable or a general discharge. He believes that the punishment he received was unfair. The applicant submits letters in support of his application.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 29 September 1972, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 36K10 (Field Wireman). The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-2.
On 23 May 1973, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment, under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 17 to 23 April 1973 and from 7 to 10 May 1973. His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of $50.00 pay and 14 days extra duty.
On 19 July 1973, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of being AWOL from 17 June to 3 July 1973. He was sentenced to a forfeiture of $150.00 pay and confinement at hard labor for 14 days.
On 25 February 1974, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant of being AWOL from 6 August 1973 to 31 January 1974.
On 28 February 1974, after consulting with legal counsel the applicant voluntarily without any coercion requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant acknowledged, that he understood the elements of the offenses charged. The applicant waived further rehabilitation and was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions. He acknowledged that he understood, that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf. The applicant stated, in effect, that he wanted out of the Army because he hates the Army and would keep going AWOL until he receive a discharge. He stated, that he has a real good job now working for his girl friend’s father and that they were getting married soon. He has to get out of the Army to make his relationship work; otherwise he could loose his girlfriend. The applicant wrote in bold print “I CAN’T STAND THE ARMY LET ME OUT PLEASE!”
A Report of Medical Examination found the applicant fit for retention.
On 7 March 1974, the Commanding General approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of a Discharge Certificate Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. On 12 March 1974, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge under other than honorable conditions. He had completed 9 months and 27 days of creditable active military service.
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.
On 17 October 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his 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. 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.
3. There is no indication that his request for discharge was made under coercion or duress. The applicant declined counsel, waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers, and acknowledged that he understood the effects of discharge under other than honorable conditions. He also acknowledged that he understood that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because the type of discharge he received; and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and VA benefits.
4. There is no evidence in the available records to demonstrate that the applicant’s punishment was unfair.
5. Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
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
__lls___ __rwa___ __tlp___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001062783 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020108 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19740312 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, chp10 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A70.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.7000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065803C070421
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he asked for a general discharge for the good of the service, because he was having family problems. On 13 May 1974, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant of being AWOL from 12 February to 8 May 1974. On 28 May 1974, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge UOTHC.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068441C070402
On 6 March 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant of being AWOL from 8 October 1974 to 28 February 1975. On 28 April 1975, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a UD. On 22 June 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087374C070212
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 either an honorable or general discharge. The applicant advised the agents at the time that he would go AWOL again if he was not discharged.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019661
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. There is no evidence in the available records to show he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070007318C071029
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 21 May 1974, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with an undesirable discharge and a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. On 12 October 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088182C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001067678C070421
The Board considered the following evidence: On 27 February 1986, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002067678SUFFIXRECONYYYYMMDDDATE BOARDED2002067678TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UD)DATE OF DISCHARGE1973/10/17DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200, chp10.
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 | CY2006 | 20060003672C070205
David Tucker | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must indicate that they are submitting the request of their own free will, without coercion from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003731C070206
On 21 March 1974, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. Evidence of record shows that on 28 February 1974, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service and indicated in his request that he had not been subjected to coercion. The applicant’s record of service included one nonjudicial punishment and 59 days of lost time.