| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Joyce A. Wright | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Gail J. Wire | Member | |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: That his undesirable discharge should be upgraded. In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show he enlisted on 24 October 1975, as a memorial activities specialist.
He was convicted by a special court-martial on 18 August 1976, of being AWOL from 2 to 8 June 1976 (6 days) and from 15 to 29 June 1976 (14 days). His
sentence consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay,
and confinement at hard labor for 2 months.
The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 24 May 1977, and was found qualified for separation.
Charges were preferred against the applicant on 17 May 1977, for being AWOL from 28 February to 9 May 1977 (71 days).
On 31 May 1977, he consulted with 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 offense charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA) if a discharge under other than honorable conditions were issued. He also elected to submit a statement in his own behalf in which he stated, in summary, that his family problems were contributing factors to his acts of indiscipline.
On 7 July 1977, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The applicant was discharged on 21 July 1977. He had a total of
1 year, 3 months, and 16 days of creditable service and had 162 days of lost time.
The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 16 August 1977. The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and equitable and denied his request on 24 May
1979.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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 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.
2. The type of separation directed and the reasons for that separation were appropriate considering all of 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
__iw___ ___gw_____ ___rw____DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001064024 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020312 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19751024 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C, 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050016199C070206
On 10 November 1976, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 12 January 1977 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. Since the applicant’s record of service included one nonjudicial punishment and a serious drug offense that led to referral...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062738C070421
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 honorable. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001933C070206
He also states, in effect, that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable or at least a general discharge due to the following: (1) his ability to serve was impaired by his youth and immaturity, and his mother’s ill health and hospitalization; (2) he requested a compassionate reassignment but was unfairly told to forget it; (3) his nonjudicial punishment was only an isolated offense; (4) his conduct and efficiency ratings and proficiency marks were mostly pretty good; (5) he has been...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001451C070206
The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 10 February 1977 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief and to excuse failure to timely file.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001451C070206
The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded. On 26 January 1977, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 10 February 1977 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070001309C071029
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states, in a statement dated 11 January 2007, that he enlisted and loved his training. Since he had been gone from Fort Meade for 48 days with evidently no further threats from those two Soldiers (at least he did not mention at the time or currently that he received any further threats), and since after he turned himself in he was sent to Fort Dix and not returned to Fort Meade, his statement now that he felt so threatened...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060048C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The request was denied. The applicant’s records were thoroughly searched, but failed to show any documented evidence other than the applicant’s statement to support his allegation that he was to receive a hardship discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017528
The applicant requests his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. _______ _ X_______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086602C070212
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Had...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707443
The Board considered the following evidence: On 1 October 1975, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for wrongfully possessing marijuana. On 11 January 1977, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1 for the good of the service.