Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069868C070402
Original file (2002069868C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 20 June 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002069868

         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun Director
Mr. Jessie B. Strickland Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. Chairperson
Mr. Roger W. Able Member
Mr. John T. Meixell Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. 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 correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)


APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES: That he was a young naïve enlisted member and he was afraid that if he did not choose between court-martial and the discharge, he would end up at Fort Leavenworth.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:

He enlisted in Albany, New York, with parental consent on 15 March 1971, for a period of 3 years. He was transferred to Fort Dix, New Jersey to undergo his basic combat training (BCT).

On 26 April 1971, he went absent without leave (AWOL) and remained absent until he was returned to military control on 1 May 1971. He again departed AWOL on 20 May to 19 August 1971, 2 September to 14 September 1971 and 21 September 1971 to 16 February 1972, when he was apprehended by civil authorities and was returned to military control at Fort Dix, where charges were preferred against him.

On 20 March 1972, after consulting with counsel, 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. In his request he indicated that he was making the request of his own free will, without coercion from anyone and that he was aware of the implications attached to his request. He acknowledged that he understood that he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of all benefits as a result of such a discharge. He also indicated that he understood the unlikelihood of any agency ever upgrading his discharge and that he understood he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life where his discharge was concerned.

The appropriate authority (a major general) approved his request on 6 April 1972 and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 3 May 1972, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had served 5 months and 7 days of total active service and had 257 days of lost time due to AWOL.

He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 19 July 1974, contending that he was not sufficiently mature at the time to face the responsibilities of military duties and contended that it was unfair for him to have his whole future affected by a bad discharge. The ADRB determined that the applicant had been properly discharged and denied his application on 30 December 1974.
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. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must indicate that they have been briefed and understand the consequences of such a request as well as the discharge they might receive. 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. 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, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

3. After being afforded the opportunity to assert his innocence before a trial by court-martial, he voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a felony conviction on his records. While he may now believe that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date, especially considering the number and length of his absences as well as his otherwise undistinguished record of service during such a short period of time.

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

___rwa__ ___jm___ __rvo____ DENY APPLICATION



                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records




INDEX

CASE ID AR2002069868
SUFFIX
RECON YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED 2002/06/20
TYPE OF DISCHARGE UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE 1972/05/02
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.


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071810C070403

    Original file (2002071810C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a more favorable discharge. The commanding general approved his request on 3 August 1973 and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050017701C070206

    Original file (20050017701C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant states that he was ordered to active duty after having served 5 1/2 years of Enlisted Reserve duty because of missed meetings for medical reasons and was given an undesirable discharge for being absent without leave (AWOL) for 11 months. The board found that the documents he submitted with his appeal failed to qualify the applicant for mitigation or relief from his involuntary call to active duty.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072412C070403

    Original file (2002072412C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general or medical discharge. He contended at that time that he simply could not adjust to military life, that he had been a good citizen since his discharge and that he did not want to lose his job or his new home because his employer discovered the type of discharge he received. The ADRB determined that he had been properly discharged and denied his request on 24 July 1974.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004099952C070208

    Original file (2004099952C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The application submitted in this case is dated 21 October 2003. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must indicate that they have been briefed and understand the consequences of such a request as well as the discharge they might receive.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009405

    Original file (20100009405.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's complete service records are not available for review with this case. Following consultation with legal counsel, he requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial in accordance with chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations). The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of a trial by court-martial with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003672C070205

    Original file (20060003672C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    David Tucker | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must indicate that they are submitting the request of their own free will, without coercion from...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001118

    Original file (20120001118.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He also acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request were approved, he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 6 and 7 September 1973, his chain of command, including his immediate, intermediate, and senior commanders, recommended approval of the discharge with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005918C070205

    Original file (20060005918C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that her undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. There is no evidence in the available records to show that she ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072055C070403

    Original file (2002072055C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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: EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010549

    Original file (20100010549.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general 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.