| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: The applicant offers no evidence or argument in support of his request.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in Des Moines, Iowa, on 28 August 1972, for a period of 4 years, assignment to Europe and a cash enlistment bonus. He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Berlin, West Germany on 12 January 1973, for duty as a light weapons infantryman.
On 25 September 1973, the applicant was referred to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Control Program (ADACP) by his commander, for suspected drug use. The applicant admitted to his counselor that he was using heroin, marijuana and tranquilizers.
On 25 October 1973, he went absent without leave (AWOL) and remained absent until he was apprehended by civil authorities in Des Moines on 19 December 1973. He was returned to military control at Fort Snelling, Minnesota, and was then transferred to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, where charges were preferred against him.
The facts and circumstances surrounding his administrative discharge are not present in the available records. However, his records do contain a duly constituted DD Form 214, which shows that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions 22 January 1974, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had served 1 year, 3 months, and 21 days of total active service and had 55 days of lost time due to AWOL.
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.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of the 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 charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. A condition of submitting such a request is that they must admit guilt to the charges preferred against them or a lesser included offense which would also result in a punitive discharge. They must also indicate that they have been briefed and understand the consequences of such a request as well as the discharge they might receive. 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.
2. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.
3. After being afforded the opportunity to assert his innocence before a trial by court-martial, he voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and a felony conviction. While he may now believe that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date, especially considering his circumstances of his case that are present in the available records.
4. 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.
5. 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
___rvo___ __dh____ ___rjw __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001065929 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/04/09 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1974/01/22 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | GD OF SVC |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 689 | 144.7000.A70.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003130C070206
Allen L. Raub | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. 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 consequences...
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 | 2001057623C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 10 May 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed an undesirable discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 17 May 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088470C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 6 May 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. The evidence of record clearly shows that he went AWOL twice and then he submitted a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial after he consulted with counsel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070662C070402
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: APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088478C070403
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 November 2003 DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003088478 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067565C070402
The Board considered the following evidence: On 23 April 1973, 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. However, they are not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088607C070403
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. DISCUSSION : Considering...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071203C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 13 September 1973, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge. 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 | 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: