| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade | Analyst |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Member | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge (UD) discharge be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) does not reflect that he turned himself in from being AWOL (absent without leave). He further states that his earlier life experiences (sexual abuse/rape) were the proximate cause of his going AWOL.
In support of his application, the applicant submitted various documents relating to his psychiatric care since being discharged from the Army and several character references. It is noted that the applicant began treatment in 1977, at least 1 year after discharge.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 15 November 1974, the applicant was examined for enlistment in the Army and was found to be medically qualified for enlistment. The applicant did not indicate on SF 93 (Report of Medical History) that he had previously suffered, or was then suffering from depression, anxiety, or any other type of mental condition.
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 November 1974 for a period of 3 years. He enlisted for the Station of Choice Enlistment Option – Fort Sheridan, Illinois, and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 71M, Chaplain’s Assistant. Following completion of all military training, the applicant was awarded MOS 71M and was assigned to Fort Sheridan as his first permanent duty assignment.
The applicant did not report to Fort Sheridan and was AWOL from 16 April 1975 through 4 December 1975. On 5 December 1975, he surrendered to military authorities at Fort Carson, Colorado, and was assigned to the Personnel Control Facility.
Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 8 December 1975. On 9 December 1975, counsel advised the applicant of his rights and the consequences of requesting discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200. After consulting with counsel about his rights, the applicant voluntarily and in writing, requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf in which he stated that he was just not suited for the Army, that he had no emotional problems, and that he understood the consequences of a chapter 10 discharge. The chain of command recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge with a UD.
On 16 December 1975, a mental status examination found no apparent psychosis or debilitating neurosis and psychiatrically cleared the applicant for discharge. It was noted that the applicant did not check the block on SF 93 relating to depression/anxiety, nor did he indicate he was having any psychiatric problems.
On 31 December 1975, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed issuance of a UD. Accordingly, on 19 January 1976, the applicant was discharged from the Army after completing 6 months and 3 days of creditable military service and accruing 233 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. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.
The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his UD on 29 October 1982. The ADRB considered the applicant’s case and denied relief on 12 November 1982.
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. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.
3. The Board noted the applicant’s complaint that his DD Form 214 did not state that he had returned voluntarily to military control; however, the method in which an applicant returns from a period of AWOL is not recorded on his DD Form 214.
4. The record does not support, and the applicant has not presented any evidence to support his contention that his period of AWOL was the result of rape and sexual abuse he experienced as a child. Furthermore, there is no evidence of record that the applicant was experiencing any psychiatric problems or anxiety when he enlisted or when he was discharged from the Army.
5. The Board noted that it was more than 1 year after the applicant was separated from the Army when he was initially diagnosed with, and treated for a mental illness.
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
__WTM__ __CLG__ __RKS__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002063625 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020402 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19760119 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, c10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | In lieu of trial by court-martial |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | Director |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.7100 |
| 2. | 144.9323 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090021C070212
The Board considered the following evidence: APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the undesirable discharge (UD) her husband, a former service member (FSM), received be upgraded to an honorable discharge. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The FSM’s military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008938
His discharge resulted in a general under honorable conditions characterization of service, which is inappropriate for the following reasons: * He suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) during and after his three combat tours in Vietnam * He was being treated and assessed for mental and emotional problems in the years prior to his final discharge from service * His mental and emotional problems, which stemmed from his PTSD, made further service in the Army impossible * At the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150004899
An SF 600, dated 2 September 1972, shows the applicant complained of nervousness and was prescribed Librium. There is no evidence to show he was unable to perform his assigned duties. However, the evidence of record shows that his chain of command considered his previous service and he received a general discharge under honorable conditions rather than a discharge under other than honorable conditions which was normally considered appropriate in a chapter 10 Separations when a Soldier was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130001092
The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) to show he received a medical or honorable discharge. On 19 July 1974, as part of the enlistment process, the applicant completed a medical examination. If a Soldier is found unfit because of physical disability, this regulation provides for disposition of the Soldier according to applicable laws and regulations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080638C070215
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a discharge upgrade.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014985
The applicant requests, in effect, upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a fully honorable discharge. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. __________X_____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100015289
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. SPCM Order Number 38, Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Center and Fort Dix, dated 12 July 1985, shows that after completion of all required post-trial and appellate reviews, the convening authority ordered her BCD sentence to be executed.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078222C070215
It shows his assignments and clearly indicates that he was assigned to perform duties in MOS 11D. The commander cited the bases for his recommendation were the applicant's AWOL offenses; his punishment record; and the fact that he was very unstable and he had many family problems. On 18 June 1985, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002116
Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel and without coercion, he voluntarily 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. His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial on 22 October 1975 in the rank/grade of private/E-1 with a UD. On 28 February...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008418
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 16 December 1975, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service and directed that a UD Certificate be issued and that the applicant be reduced to pay grade E-1. The applicant was discharged on 6 January 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 with his service characterized as...