| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr. | Member | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the character of his discharge is unjust in view of the circumstances and reasons for his actions. He claims that his recruiter promised him that his family would be allowed to join him as soon as he arrived at advanced individual training (AIT). He states that upon his arrival at AIT, he discovered he was lied to and there was no way to get his family close enough to support their needs. He then went absent without leave (AWOL) in order to get a job and support his family. Finally, he comments that if the President can pardon draft dodgers who fled the draft, surely the Board can pardon him for leaving to support his family. In support of his application, he provides 9 letters of support that attest to his post service good conduct and accomplishments.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 26 February 1973, the applicant enlisted in the Army for a period of 3 years with the special unit enlistment option. He completed basic combat training and was assigned to Fort Carson, Colorado for AIT.
While assigned to Fort Carson, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 8 August 1973, for being AWOL from 4 June through 23 July 1973. The record shows that, he was again AWOL from 23 August 1973 through
11 February 1974 and 5 March 1974 through 22 June 1975.
On 10 July 1975, a court-martial charge was preferred against the applicant for two specifications of AWOL for the following periods: 23 August 1973 to
12 February 1974 and 5 March 1974 to 23 June 1975. After consulting with legal counsel and being advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum allowable punishment, and the possible effects of an UD, the applicant voluntarily requested to be discharged for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation
635-200.
The applicant elected to submit a statement in his own behalf, in which, he stated that the recruiter promised him that he would be provided housing for his wife at AIT and his reason for going AWOL was to continue his marriage. He further stated that his education was limited, the Army wrecked his family life, and he did not have what it took to be a solider. Finally, he stated that his discharge would allow him to return home and rebuild his life.
On 18 July 1975, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s discharge request and directed he be issued an UD and be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.
On 20 August 1975, the applicant was discharged accordingly. At the time of his discharge, he had completed 6 months and 27 days of creditable active military service and had accrued 697 days of time lost due to AWOL.
On 25 June 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board determined the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable and it voted to deny his request for an upgrade to 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 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 court-martial charges have been preferred. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, 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 Board notes the applicant’s contentions that his discharge was unjust, his recruiter provided him false information, and an upgrade of his discharge is warranted given a Presidential pardon was issued to draft dodgers who fled, while he went AWOL in order to support his family; and considered the letters of support submitted in his behalf. However, it finds none of these factors are sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.
2. The evidence of record shows the applicant was charged with the commission of multiple specifications of an offense that was punishable with a punitive discharge under the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
3. In addition, the record confirms that after consulting defense counsel and being advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, its implications, and the effects of an UD, the applicant voluntarily requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, he admitted guilt to the stipulated offense under the UCMJ.
4. The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. It also notes that an UD was normally issued to members separating under these provisions and the applicant was aware of that prior to his requesting discharge.
5. Finally, notwithstanding the letters of support attesting to his excellent post service conduct, the Board finds the applicant’s discharge was appropriate based on his short and undistinguished overall record of service.
6. 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.
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
__MKP__ __EJA__ __RTD___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001065555 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/04/11 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19750820 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | In Lieu of Trail by CM |
| BOARD DECISION | ( DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 70.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021700
The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge. Counsel states: * The applicant's unit was involved in numerous combat activities in the RVN * He was wounded twice while serving as a gunner and his actions and the action of his unit earned them the Presidential Unit Citation * His troubles began in 1969 when he had conflicts with the new battery commander who was not an experienced combat officer on combat tactics and employment of weapons systems * The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017136
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded. The applicant was again directed to report for transfer to Vietnam on 25 September 1970 and again he went AWOL until he was returned to military control at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri on 4 January 1971. There is no evidence in the available records to show he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075305C070403
Upon successful completion of the alternate service, former members would be granted a “clemency” discharge by the President of the United States, thus restoring his or her affected civil rights. 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: After considering his overall record of service with regard to the Presidential Proclamation 4313 program, the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000079C070205
He goes on to state that he served his tour of duty in Vietnam and was honorably discharged. He further states that his two tours in Vietnam, along with the Presidential Pardon he obtained and his subsequently successful civilian employment should justify an upgrade of his discharge. Accordingly, the Board determined that the applicant should be excused for failing to timely file for the upgrade of his discharge and to grant him an honorable discharge based on clemency.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056209C070420
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. On 29 February 1972 the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110013688
The commander stated the applicant received two special courts-martial for AWOL totaling 440 days. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge. Upon successful completion of the alternate service, former members would be granted a clemency discharge by the President of the United States, thus restoring his or her affected civil rights.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017752
The record does contain a DD Form 214 which shows the applicant was discharged on 28 March 1977 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial and that he received a discharge under conditions other than honorable. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, states a general discharge is a separation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017073
The applicant provides: * 2 self-authored statements * Reference letter, dated 27 August 2012 * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated 18 June 2012 * General Discharge Certificate * Letter, U.S. Army Office of the Adjutant General, dated 16 October 1978 * Presidential Pardon, dated 23 August 1975 * DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) * Letter, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), dated 23 December...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070018612
Director Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: M Chairperson M Member M Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his Undesirable Discharge (UD) be upgraded.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078516C070215
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: Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002078516SUFFIXRECONYYYYMMDDDATE BOARDED2003/01/28TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UD)DATE OF DISCHARGE19710421DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-212 .