| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Beverly A. Young | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Elzey J. Arledge | Member | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was made to resign from the service because of a drug problem. He contends that he did not have “trep”.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted in the Army on 30 October 1968 and attended basic combat training (BCT) at Fort Dix, New Jersey. While in BCT, he was AWOL from 11 January 1969 to 29 January 1969. He was confined and punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for this period of AWOL. On 26 February 1969, he was punished again under Article 15, UCMJ for insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned officer.
On 9 May 1969, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL on 8 March 1969 to 12 March 1969 and 27 March 1969 to 22 April 1969. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for six months and forfeiture of $73.00 pay per month for six months. His records contain an FBI Report, dated 18 April 1969, which shows he was arrested on 11 April 1969, by civil authorities in New York City for possession of dangerous drugs. However, the disposition of the charge is not present in his records.
On 1 November 1969, charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 6 August 1969 to 24 August 1969 and 19 September 1969 to 12 October 1969. He 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 did not submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 28 November 1969, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed an undesirable discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 4 December 1969 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 5 months and 1 day of creditable service and 246 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
On 26 August 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s 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 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, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The Board noted the applicant’s contention that he was made to resign due to a drug problem; however, his 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. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.
2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for his separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
3. 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.
4. 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____ EJA_____ RKS____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001062803 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020131 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19691204 |
| 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 | CY2008 | 20080003614
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. 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 anyone and that they have been briefed and understand the consequences of such a request as well as the discharge they might receive.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081200C070215
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 | CY2010 | 20100017973
On 23 July 1969, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service in accordance with chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, an undesirable discharge was considered appropriate at the time. His character of service is appropriate based on the facts of the case and his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040009518C070208
There is no indication the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a discharge upgrade with that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 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. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071500C070402
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 an honorable or general discharge by reason of medical disability. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082964C070215
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 an honorable discharge. On 28 September 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120016784
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 13 May 1970, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017965
On 23 April 1971, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service after consulting with counsel who advised him of the basis for his contemplated trial by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge; the effects of requesting discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10; and the rights available to him. On 4 June 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100004485
The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service -in lieu of trial by court-martial with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions and issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 9 January 1991, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records denied his petition for an upgrade because he had not submitted his application...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004752C070206
The applicant requests, in effect, that all of the blocks on his DD Form 214 be completed and that he be provided an explanation of why he received a discharge under other than honorable conditions. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge on 11 January 1974 and that board found that his discharge was both proper and equitable and denied his request on 6 February 1974. That regulation also provided that information blocks contained on the...