| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Mr. John E. Denning | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That it took so long to get out of Korea that he missed his father’s funeral. He was given an extension on his leave over the phone so he could take care of business. He was then charged with being absent without leave (AWOL). He took the discharge rather than go into confinement. He is currently homeless and is seeking help from the Department of Veterans Affairs. He had a drug problem at one time but has been clean for several years now. He provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 April 1984. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13R (Field Artillery Firefinder).
The applicant was assigned to Korea on 10 September 1984. On an unknown date, he was given leave apparently to return to the States for his father’s funeral. His duty status was changed from ordinary leave to AWOL effective 20 May 1985. He surrendered to military authorities on 10 September 1985.
When he completed a Personnel Control Facility Interview Sheet, he indicated that he went AWOL while home on leave for his father’s death. His mother took sick and he thought he was needed at home. He went to his recruiter’s office for a week trying to get in touch with his unit. He could not contact them so he stayed home. When his mother got better, he turned himself in. It was noted on this form that he did not try to contact the Red Cross.
On 10 September 1985, the applicant elected not to take a separation physical examination.
On 12 September 1985, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with AWOL from on or about 24 May 1985 to on or about 10 September 1985.
On 16 September 1985, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 2 December 1985, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions.
On 30 January 1986, the applicant was discharged with a discharge under other than honorable conditions, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had completed 1 year, 6 months, and 5 days of creditable active service and had 113 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. 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. 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 notes that the applicant’s current contention that he was given an extension of leave over the phone but was charged with being AWOL anyway is different from his contention at the time that he tried to contact his unit through the services of his recruiter but was unable to do so. While the Board sympathizes with the applicant’s reasons for wanting a leave extension, the Board notes that the most leave he would have received would have been 30 days. He was AWOL for a total of 113 days.
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
__jns___ __bje___ __jed___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001065511 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020214 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19850130 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, ch 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A70.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005629
He was reissued a new DD Form 214 that listed his characterization of service as under honorable conditions (general); but his narrative reason for separation, RE code, and separation code were not changed. The applicant's record of service shows that he was charged with being AWOL. The applicants separation and RE codes were assigned based on the fact that he was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial, due to being AWOL.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019194
The applicant's request for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge was carefully considered; however, there is insufficient evidence to support his request. Based on his record of indiscipline, including his bar to reenlistment and 7 months and 18 days of time lost, due to being AWOL and in confinement, his service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. _______ _ _x _______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014227
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests his under than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally issued to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005988
His records do not show any significant acts of valor during his military service. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged for the good of the service, under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200, with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002609C070206
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 7 February 1986, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063479C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 21 March 1985, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100000102
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 1 July 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100000102 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states before he joined the Army he spoke with a recruiter (staff sergeant) and the recruiter told him if he found himself not wanting to be in the Army after he arrived at basic training he could just leave and he would be discharged as if he was never in the military. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) states, in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011342
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states he was absent without leave (AWOL) because his father was ill in a Mexican jail. On 2 December 1992, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072028C070403
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: Although the specifics are not contained in the available records, his records show that nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him on 9 July 1969 for misconduct and his punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005410
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 July 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080005410 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty individuals will be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge.