| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Member | |
| Ms. Terry L. Placek | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to show that he received a hardship discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was never informed about his hardship discharge, one way or the other. He provides a self-authored statement that recounts his family life, his mother and grandmother’s deaths and his independence upon discharge in that he worked and raised a family without financial assistance from anyone. He indicates he was a good soldier and he believes he is entitled to benefits from the Army.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 16 August 1968, with his grandparents (legal guardians) permission, he enlisted in the Army. He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11D (Armor Recon Specialist).
On 18 November 1968, 3 months after enlisting, he requested a discharge based on hardship/dependency, under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 6, in order to care for and support his grandparents. On 30 December 1968, his request was disapproved based on the conditions, which he described existing at the time of his enlistment. Further, he authenticated that he had been informed of the decision made on his request for hardship/dependency discharge.
During the period 7 March to 14 July 1969, he was assigned to a unit in Germany.
On 8 April 1969, he was advanced to pay grade E-3.
On 26 August 1970, he was convicted by a Special Court-Martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) for the period 14 August to on or about 21 November 1969, 8 December 1969 to on or about 7 January 1970 and 6 to on or about 15 February 1970. His sentence included confinement at hard labor (CHL) for 30 days (suspended for 30 days), forfeiture of $50 pay per month for 4 months and reduction to pay grade E-1. On 1 April 1070, the suspension of CHL was vacated.
On 23 December 1970, his unit commander preferred court-martial charges against the applicant for being AWOL for the period 28 April to 29 July 1970 and for escaping from lawful confinement on 26 August 1970. He was advised of his rights.
On 23 December 1970, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily submitted a request for discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. He acknowledged that he was guilty; that he could receive a UOTHC discharge; and that he understood the effects of receiving such a discharge. He indicated he had consulted with legal counsel, that he had been fully advised of the nature of his rights, and the facts, which must be established by competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain a finding of guilty. He also was informed of the possible defenses, which appeared to be available at the time and the maximum permissible punishment if he were found guilty.
On 13 January 1971, the appropriate separation authority approved his separation with an undesirable discharge and directed his reduction to pay grade E-1.
On 22 January 1971, the applicant was discharged, with a UOTHC characterization of service, under the above-cited regulation. His separation document indicates he had 1 year, 10 months and 20 days of creditable service and 192 days of lost time.
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.
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. There is no evidence of record to support the applicant’s request for a hardship discharge. It was verified that the family conditions remained the same as when he enlisted 3 months earlier, and his request was denied early on in his enlistment.
2. The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under 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.
3. After being court-martialed for AWOL, and again preferred for another court-martial, he chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequence of a second court-martial. Although he may now feel that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date to substitute another type of separation for his undesirable discharge.
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
_jhl____ _tlp____ __jns______ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002067909 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020509 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.02 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008959
The applicant requests, in effect, upgrade of his discharge to an honorable discharge. The applicant's military service records contain a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) that shows he was discharged on 22 January 1971, under conditions other than honorable, in accordance with the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the Service, with Separation Program Number (SPN) 246, and issued a DD Form 258A...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070007608
On 24 October 1969, charges were preferred against applicant for being AWOL during the period on or about 1 July 1968 through on or about 23 March 1969 and on or about 14 April 1969 through on or about 23 September 1969. On 19 November 1969, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. There is no evidence in the applicant's records that he was undergoing...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011694
On 17 August 1970, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for one specification of being AWOL during the period from on or about 12 June 1970 through 1 August 1970. In his request for discharge, the applicant acknowledged that he understood by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charges against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a discharge under other honorable conditions. The DD Form...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080009197
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 25 June 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed he be issued an Undesirable Discharge. However, at the time of separation, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001825
On 2 September 1970, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed the issuance of an undesirable discharge. However, the evidence shows he received five special court-martial convictions for AWOL during his active duty service. Since his record of service included five special court-martial convictions and 840 days of lost time, his record of service was not satisfactory.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710473C070209
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 12 October 1968 while still in basic training the applicant applied for a hardship discharge based on his parents being in old age and in poor health, his father was suffering from terminal cancer. The applicant further stated that after he had been denied a hardship discharge twice he saw no alternative but to go home and assist his family.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710473
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 12 October 1968 while still in basic training the applicant applied for a hardship discharge based on his parents being in old age and in poor health, his father was suffering from terminal cancer. On 5 October 1970 the applicant’s unit commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018606
The applicant requests, in effect, upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. He further acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request was approved, he may be discharged under conditions other than honorable and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056135C070420
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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. On 24 March 1970, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010639
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. He was to request an upgrade of his discharge after 6 months. On 18 September 1970, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and recommended that he be furnished an undesirable discharge.