| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. W. W. Osborn. Jr. | Analyst |
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member | |
| Mr. Harry B. Oberg | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions and that completion of a General Educational Development (GED) test be listed on his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation of Discharge from Active Duty).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he chose to be absent without leave (AWOL) in order to force the chain of command into changing his military occupational specialty (MOS). He asked several times during advanced individual training, but they would not give in. He was young and immature and would not give in either. He dates the discovery as 1971 and states that he did not realize the discharge could be changed, "plus I was stubborn…for a while."
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted on 1 October 1969 for guaranteed training as a communications center specialist (MOS 72B). He was 18 years, 1 month and 8 days old and he had a 10th grade education.
He completed basic combat training and started MOS training on 2 December 1970. The applicant was AWOL from 6 January to 13 January 1970 and from 24 January to 6 March 1970, at which time he lost his designation as a MOS 73B trainee. He was then AWOL from 7 March to 11 April 1970 and from 19 May to 18 August 1970.
A 5 October 1970 special court-martial convicted him of those four specifications of AWOL. He was sentenced to confinement for 4 months and forfeiture of $80.00 pay per month for 6 months. On 22 December 1970 the unexecuted portions of the sentence were remitted.
Charges were preferred for AWOL from 6 February 1971 to 29 June 1971.
The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for absence from his appointed place of duty on 15 and 19 January 1971.
On 29 June 1971, the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. His request acknowledged that he understood the nature and consequences of the other than honorable discharge that he might receive. He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.
A 6 July 1971 separation medical examination found him to be qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111111.
The separation authority approved the request and directed that an undesirable discharge be issued. On 16 July 1971 the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He had 11 months of creditable service and 478 days lost.
His DA Form 669 GED Individual Record is blank except for identifying data. There is no available evidence that the applicant either took or passed any portion of the GED tests.
On 6 July 1973 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), in a unanimous decision denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge to general. The ADRB reviewed his record again on 2 November 1977 and denied relief under the provisions of the DOD Discharge Review Program (Special) (SDRP).
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. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.
The Manual for Courts-Martial, Table of Maximum Punishments provides that a punitive discharge is authorized for any AWOL offense of more than 30 days.
On 4 April 1977 the Department of Defense (DOD) directed the Services to review all less than fully honorable administrative discharges issued between 4 August 1964 and 28 March 1973. This program, known as the DOD Discharge Review Program (Special) (SDRP) required, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, that a discharge upgrade to either honorable or general be issued in the case of any individual who had either completed a normal tour of duty in Southeast Asia, been wounded in action, been awarded a military decoration other than a service medal, had received an honorable discharge from a previous period of service, or had a record of satisfactory military service of 24 months prior to discharge. Consideration of other factors, including possible personal problems that may have contributed to the discharge, and a record of good citizenship since the time of discharge, would also be considered upon application by 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 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. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
2. The applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief. The Board notes that the applicant was 18 1/2 years of age at the time of his first AWOL and he had demonstrated the capacity for honorable service by completion of basic training.
3. There is no available evidence and the applicant offered no argument to establish that his desire to change his MOS mitigates his repeated AWOLs.
4. There is no available evidence that the applicant successfully completed any portion of a GED test.
5. 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
6. 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
_TSK____ __ JTM__ __HBO__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002067609 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020711 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 197 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, Ch 10 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | A70.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012931
On 26 November 1971, while in military confinement, the applicant consulted with counsel and the applicant submitted a voluntary request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations), chapter 10. On 25 October 1978, the ADRB conducted a second review of the applicant's GD under the uniform standards for discharge review, in effect at that time, and unanimously voted not to affirm the applicant's discharge because...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017780
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) which was upgraded to a general discharge (GD), under the Department of Defense (DOD) Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP), be upgraded to honorable. A memorandum, dated 21 October 1971, Subject: Elimination Proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, shows that a board of officers was directed to investigate his case to determine if he should be discharged from the service. He applied to the Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004106906C070208
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 March 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR2004106906 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 applicant requests that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions or to a fully honorable discharge. This program, known as the DOD Discharge Review...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008333
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge under honorable conditions to an honorable discharge. The applicant's record contains the following DA Forms 268 showing: a. on 29 June 1971 while assigned to Fort Gordon, GA, he was pending disciplinary action for being AWOL from 8 January through 15 June 1971; b. on 28 September 1971, an AWOL charge was dropped (no reason shown) and the applicant was reassigned to Fort Dix for ultimate assignment to the U.S. Army Republic of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004557
The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of a court-martial with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions. His records indicate these periods of unauthorized absence consisted of absence without leave, confined civil authorities, and/or confined military authorities. The Board has been advised in similar cases that the VA often requires validation of affirmation of SDRP upgrades by the military service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007399
The applicant again went AWOL on 17 March 1972 and remained absent in a desertion status until he was returned to military control at Fort Dix on 2 October 1972 and charges were preferred against him. This program, known as the DOD Discharge Review Program (Special) (SDRP) required, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, that a discharge be upgraded to either honorable or general in the case of any individual who had either completed a normal tour of duty in Southeast Asia,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073717C070403
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: This program, known as the DOD Discharge Review Program (Special) (SDRP) required, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, that a discharge upgrade to either honorable or general be issued in the case of any individual who had either completed a normal tour of duty in Southeast Asia, been wounded in action, been...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110015482
The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge. On 24 May 1978, the applicant was notified that the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered his request under the DOD SDRP and directed that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions. In the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, this program, known as the DOD SDRP, required that a discharge upgrade to either honorable or general be issued in the case of any individual who had...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013767
The applicant requests his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions. h. Upon his return stateside and assignment to Fort Lee, VA, his records show periods of him being absent without leave (AWOL), including a conviction by a special court-martial in May 1971 for being AWOL. This program, known as the DOD Discharge Review Program (Special) (SDRP) required, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, that a discharge upgrade to either...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004101091C070208
The applicant's request for administrative discharge from the Army, in lieu of court martial, is not on file in the applicant's service personnel records for review. This review would establish the former service member’s right to request that the VA grant favorable action on a request for veteran benefits. As noted by the evidence of record, the applicant's request for administrative discharge from the Army, in lieu of court martial, is not on file in the applicant's service personnel...