| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Kathleen A. Newman | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD) and the narrative reason for his discharge be corrected to read hardship. He also requests that his separation program number (SPN) be changed.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his father’s health, the death of his mother, and being married with a new baby impaired his ability to serve in the Army. He states that he served successfully in the Army and should not have to suffer a mistake for the rest of his life. He further states that his service in Vietnam and the stress of his family problems warrants an upgrade of his discharge. In support of his application, he submits a letter of support and his separation document (DD Form 214).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 31 July 1968, the applicant entered the Army for 3 years. He successfully completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 45K (Tank Turent Repairman).
The applicant’s record shows that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was specialist five (SP5). It also shows that he earned the following awards: Vietnam Service Medal; Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with 60 Device; and National Defense Service Medal.
The record also shows that on 4 July 1971, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 8 July 1971 to 19 October 1971.
The applicant went AWOL again from 15 November 1971 to 11 October 1972. A court-martial charge was preferred against the applicant for the period of AWOL. After consulting with legal counsel and being advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, he voluntarily requested to be discharged for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. With his request he submitted a statement that he could no longer adjust to military life due to his father’s health.
On 3 November 1972, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation request, directed that he receive an UD, and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. On 8 November 1972, the applicant was discharged accordingly, after having served a total of 3 years, 1 month, and 2 days of total active service and 433 days of lost time due to AWOL. He was assigned SPN 246.
Appendix A of Army Regulation 635-5, in effect at the time, specifies the reasons for separation of members from active military service and the SPN to be assigned for these stated reasons. The appendix of that regulation provides that a SPN code of 246 will be assigned when separation is under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, to denote discharge for the good of the service.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue 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 an 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 contentions that his marital and family problems impaired his ability to serve in the Army. However, they are not supported by the evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge. The Board notes that, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.
3. The Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process and that the type of discharge directed and the reason therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
4. As requested by the applicant, the Board considered his good service during the enlistment under review and his Vietnam service. However, the Board concludes that these factors alone do not mitigate the applicant’s misconduct sufficiently to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
5. The Board notes that the applicant’s SPN of 246 was issued to him in accordance with applicable regulatory guidance and he has failed to show, through the evidence he submitted with his application or the evidence of record that the SPN issued to him is incorrect. Thus, the Board concludes that the SPN is still appropriate and there is no basis for changing it at this time.
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
__MHM__ __KAN__ __DPH__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002070210 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/05/14 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.700 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004752C070206
The applicant requests, in effect, that all of the blocks on his DD Form 214 be completed and that he be provided an explanation of why he received a discharge under other than honorable conditions. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge on 11 January 1974 and that board found that his discharge was both proper and equitable and denied his request on 6 February 1974. That regulation also provided that information blocks contained on the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088406C070403
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: He completed 8 months of total active service and he reenlisted in the Army on 23 September 1970.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011897
When charges were preferred for those offenses, the applicant consulted with counsel and on 24 July 1973, he requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of court-martial. On 17 August 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate and reduction to private (PV1)/E-1. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080000774
On 10 April 1972, the applicant requested a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations). This document also shows that the applicant was issued Separation Program Number (SPN) "246" and his character of service was "under conditions other than honorable" for the period of service under review. There is no evidence showing the applicant applied to the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009230
However, his records include a DD Form 214 showing he was discharged on 20 January 1972 for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel). His service medical records are not available for review, and the available records are void of documentation showing he had any medical conditions or that he was under a doctor's care while he was AWOL and DFR. The available evidence does not support the applicant's request for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058729C070421
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). The counselor also confirms that the applicant now suffers from a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) that is well documented in VA records and has received medication and counseling for this condition for many years. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that this Board affirms the SDRB upgrade of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010080
On 19 December 1972, the applicant was discharged accordingly. Chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge, could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial charges were preferred,. It stated, in pertinent part, that the SPN code of 246 was the appropriate code to assign to Soldiers discharged under the provisions...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016947
The applicant's military personnel records show he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 2 years on 15 April 1971. The applicant's military personnel records contain his DD Form 214 that shows he entered active duty on 15 April 1971 and was discharged on 31 October 1972, under other than honorable conditions in accordance with the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service with SPN 246 and issued a DD Form 258A. Records show the applicant was 18...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000347
Counsel adds that: * the applicant was unaware that he had a legal issue pertaining to his separation (action) * he is currently in the hospital with cancer * he was not properly counseled as to the legal ramifications of a chapter 10 (in lieu of court-martial) * the applicant does not remember any paperwork associated with a chapter 10 discharge or meeting with an attorney * his record is void of the statement or request for discharge in lieu of court-martial that is required by the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004167C070206
The applicant was awarded the Bronze Star Medal, for meritorious service for the period June 1970 though April 1971, by General Orders 3189, Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division (Airmobile), dated 18 April 1971. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but the separation authority...