| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Stephanie Thompkins | Analyst |
| Mr. George D. Paxson | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Member | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was young and had family problems back home. He also states that he thought the Army was for him, but it was not.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army, at age 19, for 3 years as a private first class on 13 December 1974.
He was reported absent without leave (AWOL) on 9 October 1975.
On 21 October 1975, his father was notified in writing that the applicant had been reported AWOL and if the applicant did not report to his unit by 6 November 1975, he would be dropped from the rolls as a deserter.
On 7 November 1975, his father was notified in writing that the applicant had been dropped from the rolls as a deserter.
The applicant was apprehended by civilian authorities and returned to military control on 26 December 1975.
The facts and circumstances pertaining to his separation are not in the available records. However, on 2 February 1976, the appropriate authority approved the applicant for discharge from the service with an undesirable discharge.
He was separated on 10 February 1976, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial. He was 21 years of age and he was credited with 11 months and 12 days total active service and 78 days AWOL.
The applicant was advised that he could request a review of his discharge within 15 years after the date of discharge by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB). There is no evidence he applied to the ADRB within the 15 year statute of limitations.
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 UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.
Paragraph 3-7 of this regulation 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.
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 view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge to honorable. He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.
2. The applicant’s contentions that he was young and had family problems back home have been noted by the Board; however, his contentions are not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record, and do not otherwise serve as mitigating evidence in this case.
3. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record.
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
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001063468 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001063468 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | A70 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080001164
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. This lawyer was also informed that the applicant desired to submit a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Chapter 10 (Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial), Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel). In his request for discharge, the applicant also acknowledged that he understood that, if his request for discharge was accepted, he could be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063263C070421
The Board considered the following evidence: 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 must conclude that the applicant's commander, using the information available to him at that time, properly considered and accepted the applicant's request for discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065904C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. When given the choice between being discharged or court-martialed, he elected to be discharged believing he would be able to have his discharge upgraded at a later date. He has presented no evidence which would serve as a basis to upgrade the character of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070009411C080407
An UOTHC discharge normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial; however, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an UD. However, it does confirm he was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge, and that he voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in his receiving a punitive discharge. The evidence of record...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010821C071029
In the request the applicant submitted to the Board originally, he stated he was supposed to be discharged for medical reasons because of a back injury from a motorcycle accident, and that he was, at the time, trying to qualify for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits. A copy of a DA Form 31, Request and Authority for Leave, in the applicant's service record shows he was allowed to go on excess leave pending approval of his request for discharge in lieu of trial by court- martial. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070003033C071029
On 31 May 1977, the applicant was discharged accordingly. 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. The record clearly shows the applicant requested discharge to avoid a trial by court-martial that could...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040008699C070208
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 July 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20040008699 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests, in effect, upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions to an honorable discharge. The applicant's military service records show that he enlisted on 28 May 1974 for a period of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013669
The applicant states, in effect: * his mother was sick at the time with ulcerative colitis and his father had died 6 days after he entered active duty * as the only child, he requested a compassionate reassignment to Fort Riley, KS to be closer to his mother; his request was denied * because he felt this decision was unfair and he needed to be with his mother, he absented himself without authority from his unit * today, this would have been handled as a hardship discharge, but he was instead...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062753C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The commander’s inquiry found no reason to justify his absence other than the applicant’s personal problems at home and the fact he did not like Germany. The applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates that he was discharged on 7 October 1976, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in pay grade E-1, and was issued a UOTHC discharge certificate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007994
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. When he came home from basic training he found the kids alone and this is why he went AWOL the first time. There is no evidence the applicant requested assistance through his chain of command for a hardship discharge during his period of service.