| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. G. E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Ms. JoAnn H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Member | |
| Mr. Terry L. Placek | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded to general or honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was young and made a mistake that has adversely affected him the rest of his life. He states that he and his family are ashamed of his actions. He asks that his discharge be upgraded as it is interfering with his starting a small business.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant entered active duty on 15 July 1971 at age 17. He was reported absent without leave (AWOL) on 8 August 1971, 24 days later. The applicant remained AWOL until 13 May 1975, when he returned to military control of his own volition.
On 21 May 1975, the applicant consulted with military counsel and requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He requested military counsel but waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers, and acknowledged that he understood the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions.
The discharge authority accepted the applicant's request and directed that he be separated under the Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate on 13 June 1975. He was shown as having 1 month and 24 days of creditable service, 707 days lost prior to his expiration of time in service (ETS), 667 days lost subsequent to his ETS, with 8 days of excess leave.
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.
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. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.
2. While the applicant was 17 when he volunteered for military service, he has not documented that he was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their enlistments.
3. While the Board is empathetic, the applicant's current personal problem are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge nor is there any evidence of post service accomplishments so noteworthy as to warrant relief.
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.
| CASE ID | AR2001064870 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020509 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.9301 |
| 2. | 144.9221 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077142C070215
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: The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075015C070403
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he served 3 years, 11 months, and 19 days beyond his ETS date and that, upon being released from the United States Disciplinary Barracks (USDB), he should have been honorably discharged. On 30 May 1979, the unit commander recommended approval of the request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 and the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions. Accordingly, on 15 June 1979, the applicant was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084090C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The separation authority, a brigadier general, approved the applicant's discharge on 9 September 1974 and directed that he be discharged with an undesirable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058209C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He did not report to Fort Polk and was placed in an AWOL status on 2 July 1971. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000629C070206
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions. It is presumed that the applicant's reenlistment bonus provided some support toward his family and financial problems because he remained AWOL for 30 days. The ADRB considered the applicant's entire record, including his one prior period of honorable service, and his family problems.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088912C070403
The Board considered the following evidence: On 29 September 1975, the applicant was discharged accordingly. There is no evidence showing that the applicant submitted a request for an upgrade to his discharge to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) within its 15 year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008856C070205
The applicant, as the widow of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests that her late husband’s undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. In a 7 September 2005 letter written by the FSM and provided by the applicant, the FSM stated, in effect, that he went absent without leave (AWOL) because of marital problems and that he was told his discharge would be upgraded to honorable within 90 days. The FSM’s request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068441C070402
On 6 March 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant of being AWOL from 8 October 1974 to 28 February 1975. On 28 April 1975, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a UD. On 22 June 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070819C070402
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: Charges were preferred against the applicant on 27 December 1976 for being AWOL from 30 October 1972 to 24 December 1976. However, in addition to his service in Vietnam from 8 November 1970 until he was granted emergency leave on 21 December 1970, the Board also reviewed his record of service which included 2084 days of lost time due to AWOL.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002400C070206
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a more favorable discharge. He enlisted in Cincinnati, Ohio, on 18 September 1969 for a period of 3 years and training as a wheeled vehicle mechanic. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.