| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Stephanie Thompkins | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Member | |
| Ms. Terry L. Placek | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he had desperate reasons for going AWOL (absent without leave). He also states that he is presently unemployed and remembered that the Army can change his discharge.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army for 2 years as a private, pay grade E-1, on 26 January 1968. He completed his basic and advanced training as an Infantryman and he was promoted to private first class, pay grade E-3, on 1 August 1968.
He was reported AWOL on 6 November 1968.
On 28 May 1969, he was charged with one specification of AWOL from 6 November 1968 to on or about 13 May 1969. He was found guilty by a Special Court-Martial of the AWOL and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and forfeiture of pay for 6 months. His sentence was adjudged on 28 May 1969 and approved on 4 June 1969.
He was reported AWOL from 8 to 28 August 1969.
He was reported AWOL on 10 September 1969 and dropped from the rolls on the same date.
On 8 December 1969, he was charged with one specification of AWOL from 10 September to 16 November 1969.
On 12 December 1969, he requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. In his request he stated that he had not been subject to coercion and had been advised of the implications attached to this type of discharge. He also elected not to submit statements in his own behalf.
On 29 December 1969, the appropriate authority approved his discharge.
He was discharged on 30 December 1969, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in pay grade E-1, and he was issued a UD discharge. He was credited with 1 year, 2 months and 3 days total active service. He had 272 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitation.
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 a UD.
This regulation also provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. 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, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.
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 view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge to honorable. He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.
2. The Board has noted his contention that he had desperate reasons for going AWOL. However, his records do not show that his commander was aware of reasons for his AWOL and the applicant has not provided any evidence to support his contention. The Board also notes that he was AWOL on several occasions, and that the applicant chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial. The Board concludes that although the applicant may now feel that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.
3. The applicant was advised of the effects of a UD. He was also afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.
4. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
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
In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
_jhl____ _tlp____ _jns____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002069138 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020509 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | A70 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018869
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 2 May 1969, the applicants company commander recommended the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, with an UD. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, stated a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077239C070215
The Board considered the following evidence: On 6 March 1968, the applicant, still undergoing AIT, accepted NJP for being AWOL from 4-5 March 1968. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002077239SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20030313TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UD)DATE OF DISCHARGE19690415DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-212DISCHARGE REASONA51.00BOARD DECISION(DENY)REVIEW AUTHORITYISSUES 1.144.50002.3.4.5.6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001717
On 17 November 1972, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. A UD was normally considered appropriate for individuals separated by reason of unfitness. He has provided no evidence or argument to show his UD should be upgraded to a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017729
At the time he was 20 years, 2 months, and 17 days of age. On 29 September 1969, the applicant was discharged accordingly. There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074760C070403
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In essence, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be reviewed and upgraded to an honorable 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: There is no available evidence of record and the applicant provides none to show that he had any medical condition which indicates he was unfit for separation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017613
On 28 April 1969, the applicants unit commander recommended that the applicant be discharged under the provision of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations Discharge Unfitness and Unsuitability), due to unfitness with a UD. The applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 on 20 May 1969, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, with a UD. Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel who are found to be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061538C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he was severely injured in an automobile accident in 1970 and subsequently was released from the military medical facility at Fort Gordon, Georgia. The Board notes that the applicant requested administrative separation in lieu of trial by court-martial and acknowledged the consequences of receiving an under other than honorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110002427
There is no evidence he submitted a request to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15 year statute of limitations. He has provided no evidence or argument to show his UD should be upgraded to a general or an honorable discharge. _______ _ __X_____ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077317C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On an unknown date, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for the period of AWOL from 4 June 1969-3 June 1970. On 22 June 1970, the separation authority approved separation with a UD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070012191
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge (GD), upgraded by the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP), be changed to an honorable discharge. When separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record. This program, known as the DOD Discharge Review Program (Special) (SDRP) required, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, that a discharge...