| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | ||
| Mr. Harry B. Oberg | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be changed from “section 8” to honorable. His wife was having a very bad time with depression due to the loss of their first baby. She had a miscarriage when she was four months pregnant. He requested a leave to go home to be with her but it was denied so he went absent without leave (AWOL). He voluntarily turned himself in. He provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was inducted into the Army on 23 July 1970. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13A (Field Artillery Basic).
On 15 April 1971, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for absenting himself from his place of duty until 15 April 1971. His punishment was a forfeiture of $25.00 pay and a reduction to Private, E-2 (suspended). On 29 April 1971, the suspended reduction was vacated.
The applicant departed AWOL on 3 May 1971. A Commanding Officer’s Inquiry dated 11 May 1971 indicated the applicant had been counseled on several different occasions on his conduct. No letters of indebtedness had been received on him but he did receive assistance from the Army Emergency Relief and the Red Cross. He lived off-post and his landlord revealed that he took all his personal effects with him when he departed.
The complete discharge packet is not available.
On 13 July 1971, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with being AWOL from 3 May to on or about 7 July 1971.
On or about 13 July 1971, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily 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 was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. He submitted no statement in his own behalf.
On 8 September 1971, 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 under other than honorable conditions. He had completed 11 months and 8 days of creditable active service and had 68 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. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. 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 or duress. There is no evidence to show the applicant requested leave and was unjustly denied or that he attempted to resolve his family problems through other means. Considering the length of his period of AWOL, the characterization of his discharge as under other than honorable conditions was and still is appropriate.
3. 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
__FNE__ __RWA__ __HBO___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002068566 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/06/11 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1971/09/08 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, ch 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A70.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072957C070403
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. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061637C070421
He stated that he had requested a hardship discharge; however, the request never left the company area. On 21 June 1971, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UD. However, at the time of the applicant's separation, the regulation provided for the issuance of a UD.The applicant appealed to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his UD to a general, under honorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083912C070212
On the same date, the separation authority approved separation under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200 with a UD. On 19 February 1975, as a result of a records review, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. However, at the time of the applicant's separation, the regulation provided for the issuance of a UD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058529C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 29 January 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed issuance of an undesirable discharge. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065228C070421
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. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059591C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. When he returned to Fort Lewis, WA he was told he would be returned to Vietnam. On 17 March 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062564C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Although the documentation is not in the available records, evidence shows that after the commander preferred charges for AWOL, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058209C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He did not report to Fort Polk and was placed in an AWOL status on 2 July 1971. 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 | CY2001 | 2001058344C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He was in military confinement from 3 February-29 March 1971. On 1 April 1971, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002103C070206
On 26 February 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued an undesirable discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 22 March 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. The applicant’s record of service included five nonjudicial punishments and 171 days of lost time.