| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. G. E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Member | |
| Mr. Conrad V. Meyer | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, his discharge was unduly harsh. He states that even if it were appropriate at the time, he feels that he has paid his debt. He states that he is an upstanding American and that he "was there on Sept 11th and helped my fellow man."
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant entered active duty on 29 April 1969 and reenlisted on 1 September 1970. He attained the rank of specialist four (SP4) on 24 November 1970.
A memorandum, dated 28 October 1971, shows that the applicant was in a duty status when apprehended by civilian authorities. Although the reason for the arrest is not on the correspondence, an attached Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) records check report shows a 15 August 1971 arrest for sale of narcotics. No disposition of this charge is of record
The applicant received non-judicial punishment, under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), five times for the offenses of failure to obey orders, being absent without leave (AWOL) (7 times for a total of approximately 15 days), and for missing movement.
The applicant's Enlisted Evaluation Report (EER), dated 10 April 1972, described him as a poor soldier and rated him below average in all but one area.
The applicant evaluated by mental hygiene consultation service on 2 August 1972. He was found to have a "sociopathic personality" with " no sense of guilt about anything." He was found to be able to tell right from wrong and to adhere to the right.
The applicant was reported AWOL from 14 August 1972 through 13 September 1972.
On 27 September 1972 the applicant was afforded a medical examination that found that he met the medical retention standards of Army Regulation 40-501 and was qualified for separation.
On 28 September 1972, court-martial charges were preferred for 31 days AWOL.
After consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200,
chapter 10. He acknowledged he had been advised of and understood his rights under the UCMJ, that he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions which would deprive him of many or all of his benefits as a veteran, that he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received an undesirable discharge, and that there is no automatic upgrading or review of a less than honorable discharge.
The discharge authorities accepted the request for discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 and directed that the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade (E-1) and receive an undesirable discharge. The applicant was discharged on 20 October 1972.
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. An under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.
The Manual for Courts-Martial, Table of Maximum Punishments, sets forth the maximum punishments for offenses chargeable under the UCMJ. A punitive discharge is authorized for offenses under Article 86, for periods of AWOL in excess of 30 days.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), 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. His service is appropriately characterized by his overall record.
2. There is no documentation to show that his discharge was unduly harsh in fact the applicant could have faced significantly hasher discharge had his request for discharge in lieu of court-martial not been accepted.
3. The Board notes the applicant’s statements about his post service employment and his development of a sense of responsibility; however, these activities are not so exceptionally meritorious as to outweigh the offenses that resulted in his discharge.
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.
| CASE ID | AR2002070695 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021210 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.7110 |
| 2. | 144.7130 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072451C070403
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: Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military Records
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002103C070206
On 26 February 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued an undesirable discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 22 March 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. The applicant’s record of service included five nonjudicial punishments and 171 days of lost time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005426
The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable or a general discharge. Following consultation with legal counsel, 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 is authorized, an undesirable discharge is normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088470C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 6 May 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. The evidence of record clearly shows that he went AWOL twice and then he submitted a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial after he consulted with counsel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073414C070403
The Board considered the following evidence: At a personal appearance hearing on 12 May 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request to upgrade his 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060006944C070205
On 28 June 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. On 13 June 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 13 July 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004121C070208
Lawrence Foster | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. At the time of the applicant's separation, a UD was appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008179
On 27 April 1972, he was reported as AWOL from his assigned unit and on 8 May 1972, he was DFR as a deserter. However, his record contains Special Orders Number 168, dated 28 August 1972, issued by the PCF, Fort George G. Meade, assigning him to the Separation Transfer Point for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. In addition, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 29 August 1972 under the provisions of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008717
Following consultation with legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. In his request for discharge he indicated the following: a. The applicant's DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056582C070420
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: APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.