| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Rosa M. Chandler | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That he realizes that he should not have requested a discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, however, he was young and he wanted to go home due to family problems. He is requesting an upgrade so that he may be eligible for veteran's benefits.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 20 April 1970, both the applicant’s father and his mother signed a declaration of parental consent for him to enlist in the military. On 28 April 1970, at age 17, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 16D (Hawk Missile Crewman).
On 28 August 1970, the applicant left his unit at Fort Jackson, South Carolina in an ordinary leave status. He had orders in his possession stating that on 26 September 1970, he would report to Charleston Air Force Base, South Carolina, for movement to Germany on 29 September 1970.
On 28 September 1970, the applicant went into an absent without leave (AWOL) status and he remained AWOL until he returned to military control at Fort Jackson on 17 October 1970.
On 21 October 1970, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for
the above period of AWOL. His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1 and forfeiture of $65.00 pay per month for 2 months.
On 23 October 1970, the applicant again departed Fort Jackson in an AWOL status. On 5 February 1971, civilian authorities in Key West, Florida, apprehended him and returned him to military authorities at Fort Stewart, Georgia, on the same date. On 11 February 1971, he was returned to military authorities at the Post Stockade, Fort Jackson.
On 11 February 1971, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for the period of AWOL from 23 October 1970-4 February 1971. On the same dated, the applicant was afforded the opportunity to consult with legal counsel and he declined and requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. He was advised that he could receive a UD. He acknowledged that he understood the ramifications of receiving a UD and he declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 11 February 1971, the applicant’s unit commander recommended that his request for discharge be approved with a UD. On 18 February 1971, the applicant's intermediate commander also recommended that his request for discharge be approved with a UD. On 22 February 1971, the separation authority approved separation with a UD.
On 3 March 1971, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UD. He had completed 6 months and 21 days of active military service. He also had 129 days of lost time due to being AWOL. However, his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) only shows his lost time from 23 October 1970 through 4 February 1971; it does not show his lost time from 28 September through 17 October 1970.
On 9 November 1973, the Army Discharge Review Board 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 a UD.
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. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for discharge were appropriate considering the facts of the case.
3. The applicant's conduct was inconsistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and his overall quality of service does not warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
4. The Board determined that the applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance with his personal problems without committing the misconduct offenses that led to the separation action under review.
5. The Board has taken into consideration the applicant’s contention that he was young, however, the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. Further, the Board found no evidence that he was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation.
6. Entitlement to veteran’s benefits is not a matter under the purview of this Board, but rests with the Department of Veteran Affairs. However, the lack of entitlements does not provide a basis upon which to grant an upgrade of a discharge.
7. 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
_FNE___ __LE____ _TL_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001064153 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020328 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19710303 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A70.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.7000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083912C070212
On the same date, the separation authority approved separation under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200 with a UD. On 19 February 1975, as a result of a records review, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. However, at the time of the applicant's separation, the regulation provided for the issuance of a UD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061637C070421
He stated that he had requested a hardship discharge; however, the request never left the company area. On 21 June 1971, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UD. However, at the time of the applicant's separation, the regulation provided for the issuance of a UD.The applicant appealed to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his UD to a general, under honorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100523C070208
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's military personnel records show the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 10 June 1970 for a period of 2 years and was assigned to Fort Jackson, South Carolina for basic combat training (BCT). Accordingly, on 21 June 1971, the applicant was discharged with a UD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087253C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In essence, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. The applicant's DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he was also AWOL 7-8 June 1971, there is no evidence that he was punished or charged with this period of AWOL.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707416C070209
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that at the time of his discharge the only offer made to him was to get locked up for 6 months or a UD. On 26 March 1971 the applicant was tried by special court-martial for violation of Article 86 (AWOL between 4 January and 8 February 1971). The record also contains documented evidence that on 21 March 1972 the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of Chapter 10 of AR 635-200.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707416
The record also contains documented evidence that on 21 March 1972 the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of Chapter 10 of AR 635-200. On 21 June 1972 the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed issuance of a UD. Accordingly, on 30 June 1972 the applicant was discharged after completing 2 years, 3 months, and 14 days of active military, and accruing 182 days of time lost due to AWOL.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058577C070421
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 a general discharge. He did not complete his airborne training and received orders transferring him to Fort Lewis, Washington with a report date of 25 April 1971.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9708894
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 to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9708894C070209
On 30 March 1970 while in Vietnam the applicant accepted a second NJP for sleeping in his bed while being absent from his guard post. The DD Form 214 documents that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. While the Board is empathetic with the applicants medical problems, the evidence of record shows the applicant was in good health at the time of his discharge, and he was aware of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077661C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. According to information recorded on OSA Form 62A Army Discharge Review Board Brief, dated 11 September 1973, the applicant requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of AR (Army Regulation) 635-200, chapter 10, on 26 March 1971. There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied for a hardship discharge to resolve his alleged problems -...