| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Ms. Paula Mokulis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a more favorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his discharge should be upgraded because it has been 27 years since he was discharged.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in Los Angeles, California on 3 December 1973, for a period of 3 years and training as a clerk typist. He was transferred to Fort Ord, California to undergo his training.
On 20 February 1974, while undergoing advanced individual training (AIT), nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty (guard duty). His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.
On 13 March 1974, NJP was imposed against him for striking another soldier in the face. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.
Although the reason is not apparent in the available records, NJP was again imposed against him for misconduct and his punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and extra duty.
On 17 April 1974, NJP was imposed against him for the possession of narcotic paraphernalia, possession of another soldier’s wallet, driver’s license, social security card and military identification card. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.
The applicant completed his AIT and was transferred to Fort Lewis, Washington on 5 June 1974.
An investigation was initiated by the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) on 27 September 1974 in which the applicant was investigated for the theft of personal property.
The applicant was charged with 2 days of being absent without leave from 24 December to 26 December 1974; however, there is no evidence of the disposition of those charges.
He was arrested and confined by civil authorities from 27 to 30 September 1974 and again from 15 to 17 April 1975. Although the facts and circumstances are not available in the records, there is information in the records, which indicate that he was convicted for grand larceny (auto theft) in Pierce County, Washington. This occurred while he was pending trial by a special court-martial authorized to adjudge a bad conduct discharge for several charges, which included larceny of billets and stealing parts from an automobile.
The facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not present in the available records. However, his records do contain a duly constituted report of separation signed by the applicant, which shows that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 9 May 1975, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had served 1 year, 4 months, and 29 days of total active service and had 8 days of lost time due to AWOL and civil confinement.
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. Such a request is strictly voluntary on the part of the person who has been charged and they must indicate that they have been briefed on the consequences of accepting a discharge under other than honorable conditions and must also indicate that they have not been coerced by anyone to request such a discharge. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. There are no provisions, nor have there ever been, to automatically upgrade a discharge made under these provisions.
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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that 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, it must be presumed that the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.
3. A request for discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial requires a voluntary request on the part of the individual concerned. Therefore, it appears that he voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge or the associated punishments. While he may now believe that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.
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
___fe ___ ___pm __ __ra ____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002068933 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/05/16 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1975/05/09 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, ch10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Gd of svc |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 689 | 144.7000/a70.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090279C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 7 January 1975, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. He also contended that he was misled by his defense attorney and did not know that he was going to get an undesirable discharge until he received it and that up until that time he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001066187C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The ADRB denied his request on 7 November 1974. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072256C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 5 April 1974, while attending his advanced individual training (AIT), nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for being absent from his place of duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080332C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 26 January 1976, the applicant's commander advised the applicant of his rights and preferred charges against him for the AWOL offense. There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022821
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 July 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120022821 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001297
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. He goes on to state that his discharge was based on one incident in more than 2 years of a relatively clean record. There is no indication in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090682C070212
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058577C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. He did not complete his airborne training and received orders transferring him to Fort Lewis, Washington with a report date of 25 April 1971.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070692C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his dishonorable discharge be upgraded to a more favorable discharge. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072626C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He requested that he be given a general discharge. The ADRB reviewed his medical records and noted that the applicant had been seen for a history of knee problems, both on the day of his injury and for a period of 9 months.