| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller | Analyst |
| Mr. George D. Paxson | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas A. Pagan | Member | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he asked for a general discharge for the good of the service, because he was having family problems. The military would not give him a pass to take care of those problems, so he wanted out.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 29 December 1972, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 36K10 (Field Wireman). The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-2.
On 10 May 1973, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from
4 to 8 May 1973. His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $60.00 pay,
10 days restriction and extra duty.
On 30 January 1974, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of two specifications of being AWOL from 1 August to 13 September 1973 and from 10 October 1973 to 23 January 1974. He was sentenced to a forfeiture of $210.00 pay; 45 days restriction and a reduction to pay grade E-1.
On 13 May 1974, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant of being AWOL from 12 February to 8 May 1974.
On 14 May 1974, a physical examination found the applicant fit for retention.
On 15 May 1974, after consulting with legal counsel the applicant voluntarily without any coercion 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 acknowledged, that he understood the elements of the offense charged. The applicant waived further rehabilitation and was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions. He acknowledged that he understood, that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf, but decline to do so.
On 20 May 1974, the company commander, recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. The commander’s decision was based on the applicant’s reluctance to adjust to military service.
On 21 May 1974, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 28 May 1974, 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 discharge UOTHC. He completed 9 months and 6 days of creditable active military service.
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. 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, duress or that his rights were violated in any way.
3. The applicant alleges, that he wanted out of the military because he was having personal problems. The Board has noted the contentions of the applicant. While the Board is empathetic, the applicant's personal problems are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
4. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s requests.
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
__gdp___ __tap___ __mhm___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001065803 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020221 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19740528 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, chp10. . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A70.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.7000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | CY2001 | 2001058413C070421
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 applicant stated, in effect, that the reason why he wanted out of the military was because his wife would not live with him while he was in the Army and that she threatened to divorce him, if he did not get out of the military.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067842C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He had served 1 year, 8 months and 28 days of total active service and had 97 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against them or of a lesser included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and they must indicate...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062783C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 17 October 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. There is no evidence in the available records to demonstrate that the applicant’s punishment was unfair.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072055C070403
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: EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002083076C070215
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. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against them or of a lesser included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and they must indicate that they have been briefed and understand the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003731C070206
On 21 March 1974, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. Evidence of record shows that on 28 February 1974, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service and indicated in his request that he had not been subjected to coercion. The applicant’s record of service included one nonjudicial punishment and 59 days of lost time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059976C070421
He completed basic training. On 16 April 1974, the applicant was discharged with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. The evidence of record shows that the Army honored all of the applicant’s enlistment commitments.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053079C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 25 February 1974, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. He made no mention on his SF Form 88 that he had had school problems or that he had been treated for any mental condition.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199707422
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. On 21 July 1980 the Army...