| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Beverly A. Young | Analyst |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Mark D. Manning | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: Since time has gone by, he was hoping he could get an upgrade. The applicant does not submit any documents in support of his application.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 June 1974 for a period of 3 years.
His records contain a Case Report and Directive (OSA Form 172) from the Army Discharge Review Board. This report indicates that charges were preferred against the applicant on 11 February 1975 for violating a general regulation by wrongfully and unlawfully selling Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD) to a private.
The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not in his records. However, his Report of Separation from Active Duty (DD Form 214) indicates that he was discharged on 17 March 1975 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court-martial. He was issued an undesirable discharge. He had 8 months and 25 days of creditable service with 3 days of lost time.
The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 9 June 1977 for an upgrade of his discharge. The ADRB determined that the applicant's discharge was proper and equitable and voted to deny his request.
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.
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. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.
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 that the discharge processing papers are not in the applicant’s records. However, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.
2. The Board reviewed the ADRB proceedings which revealed that the applicant was charged with wrongfully and unlawfully selling LSD to another soldier. The Board determined that the applicant’s overall military service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel sufficient to warrant an honorable discharge. Therefore, there is no apparent error or injustice on which to base recharacterization of his discharge to honorable.
3. 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.
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
KAK____ MDM____ TL______ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002066314 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020423 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19750317 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200,chapter 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | For the Good of the Service-In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | Mr. Chun |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080373C070215
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 13 January 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board determined that the applicant’s discharge had been proper and equitable, and it voted to deny the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his 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 | CY2010 | 20100016284
On 16 December 1974, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions. Chapter 10, of the version in effect at the time, provides that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083606C070212
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: That, on 17 February 1972, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. An Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) Case Report, dated 30 March 1982, shows the applicant consulted with legal counsel and, on 27 February 1975, requested separation under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004318
The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge. However, his service records coupled with the Army Discharge Review Board's (ADRB) decision indicate the following: * On 9 February 1976, court-martial charges were preferred against him for one specification of selling five sets of Army fatigues and various specifications of wrongfully and unlawfully asking for money * On 9 February 1976, he requested a discharge in lieu of trial by a court-martial after...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000349
The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge. The applicant's request that his undesirable discharge be upgraded was carefully considered; however, there is insufficient evidence to support his request. The applicant was 18 years of age at the time of his enlistment and 21 years of age at the time of his offenses.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017008
The applicant requests, in effect, upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge. On 30 March 1976 after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant submitted a request for voluntary discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. ___________X____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069502C070402
The applicant submitted two applications for the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) and an application for the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB). Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 18 February 1975 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, records show that the applicant received a special court-martial, was declared a rehabilitation failure by an ADAPCP counselor, and...
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 | CY2004 | 20040010570C070208
The applicant requests that his discharge be upgraded. On 20 September 1976 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge. The applicant’s contention that he was entitled to an honorable discharge 90 days after receiving his undesirable discharge is not supported by any evidence submitted by him, or contained in records available to the Board.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070002386
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 9 August 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070002386 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. On 18 June 1985, the Army Discharge Review Board reviewed the applicant's military records and all other available evidence and denied the applicant's request for a change in the character and reason of discharge. ...