| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John P. Infante | Member | |
| Ms. Paula Mokulis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he served almost his complete enlistment.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years and entered active duty on 24 July 1973. He successfully completed basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Polk, Louisiana. Upon completion of AIT, he was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman) and assigned to Korea for his first permanent duty station.
The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) confirms that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was specialist four/E-4 (SP4/E-4); that he completed an overseas tour in Korea in December 1975; and that during his active duty tenure he earned the National Defense Service Medal and the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (Korea). In January 1976, the applicant arrived at Fort Carson, Colorado, his last duty assignment.
The applicant’s service record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition. However, it does reveal an extensive absent without leave (AWOL) related disciplinary history. This includes his accruing a total of 114 days of time lost due to AWOL during his active duty tenure. The record confirms that he was AWOL for 2 days from
13 through 14 May 1974, for which he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He was also AWOL for 27 days, from 12 May through 7 June 1976; and for 85 days, from 10 June through 2 September 1976.
A Disposition Form (DA Form 2496), dated 5 October 1976, prepared by the Staff Judge Advocate(SJA), Fort Carson, confirms that a court-martial charge was preferred against the applicant for the following two AWOL offenses:
12 May to 7 June 1976 (27 days); and 10 June to 2 September 1976 (85 days). It also verifies that the applicant voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. The SJA recommended to the separation authority that the applicant’s discharge request be approved and that he receive an UD.
On 5 October 1976, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, and directed that the applicant receive an UD and be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. On 26 October 1976, the applicant was discharged accordingly.
The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to applicant on the date of his separation confirms that he was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by
court-martial. At the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 2 years,
11 months, and 11 days of creditable active military service, and accrued
114 days of time lost due to AWOL.
There is no indication in the record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade to his discharge within its 15 year statute of limitations.
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 UD.
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 Board notes the applicant’s contention that his discharge should be upgraded because he almost completed his enlistment. However, it finds this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.
2. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge processing. However, the Board notes that the record does contain documents including a properly constituted DD Form 214, which identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge, and the Board presumes Government regularity in the discharge process.
3. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. In connection with such a discharge, he was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. Procedurally, he was required to consult with defense counsel, and to voluntarily request separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, he admitted guilt to the stipulated offense under the UCMJ.
4. In the absence of information to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, the Board finds that the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects the overall quality of his service.
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 evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
_RVO___ ___JPI__ __PM____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002070122 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/05/30 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1976/10/26 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | In Lieu of Court-Martial |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9708914C070209
The applicant took this action after being fully advised by counsel of the following: the basis for the contemplated trail by court martial; the maximum permissible punishment under the UCMJ; and the possible effects of an undesirable discharge. 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 are preferred, submit a request for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9708914
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 are preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court martial. The Board considered all the evidence of record to include the applicant's age and maturity at the time of his service. The applicant was charged with the commission of an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065555C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The Board notes the applicant’s contentions that his discharge was unjust, his recruiter...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100433C070208
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. 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 board’s 15-year statute of limitations. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against them or of a lesser included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004649
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD). The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002083239C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 13 December 1968, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for 4 years, for assignment to Korea, a reenlistment bonus (amount unknown), his previous MOS and in pay grade E-4. The Board noted the applicant served in Vietnam prior to the period of service under review and he received an honorable discharge for that period of service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064347C070421
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 general or honorable discharge. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against them or of a lesser included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and they must indicate that they have been...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068610C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 9 June 1976, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge after determining that he had been properly discharged. 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 | CY1997 | 9710214C070209
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: In effect, that the his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: On 3 November 1973 the applicant enlisted in the New York State Army National Guard for 6 years at the age of 17. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004985
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). He voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. Although an honorable or general discharge (GD) is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate.