| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | ||
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded. He feels his behavior has changed. It has been over 30 years since his discharge. He provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was inducted into the Army on 6 April 1970. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13A (Field Artillery Basic). He was assigned to Vietnam on or about 13 September 1970.
On 15 March 1971, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for disobeying a lawful order to get out of bed for duty.
On 19 August 1971, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with wrongfully possessing .84 grams of heroin, of wrongfully introducing .84 grams of heroin onto a military base, of unlawfully striking a Specialist in the face with his fists, of offering violence to his superior commissioned officer, of disobeying a lawful order, and of behaving with disrespect towards his superior commissioned officer.
On or about 30 August 1971, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. He submitted no statement in his own behalf.
On 31 August 1971, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation. His Report of Medical Examination, SF 88, indicates that a mental status examination was normal.
On 15 September 1971, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request and directed he receive an undesirable discharge.
On 1 October 1971, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with an undesirable discharge (a discharge under other than honorable conditions). He had completed 1 year, 5 months, and 26 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.
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. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
On 13 September 1973, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded 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:
1. 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.
2. 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. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress. Considering the seriousness of the offenses for which the applicant was charged, the characterization of his discharge as under other than honorable conditions was and still is appropriate.
3. 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__ __RWA__ __JTM__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002071203 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/06/20 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1971/10/01 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, ch 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A70.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079620C070215
The Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s petition to upgrade his discharge. That board also presumed regularity in the processing of the applicant’s discharge because documents associated with his discharge were not in records available to that board. The applicant has presented no evidence that his separation was processed improperly.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018854
His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate at the time. His record does not contain and he has not provided any evidence to show the charges...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003784
The applicant requests, in effect, upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general under honorable conditions discharge. While there is no evidence of record that shows the applicant was offered rehabilitation, there is also no evidence that shows the applicant had a drug problem. In fact, the evidence of record shows that in his request for discharge for the good of the service, the applicant acknowledged that he was advised he may be discharged under other than honorable conditions and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069502C070402
The applicant submitted two applications for the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) and an application for the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB). Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 18 February 1975 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, records show that the applicant received a special court-martial, was declared a rehabilitation failure by an ADAPCP counselor, and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010827
At the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090010827 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090010827 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006984
This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 12 October 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with his service characterized as under other than honorable conditions. Records show the applicant was 19 years of age...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120000769
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded. On 23 September 1974 after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations General), chapter 10. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate at the time of the applicant's discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058860C070421
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: 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. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that his discharge was too harsh because other soldiers who...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011916C071108
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. However, the MPRJ does contain a separation document (DD Form 214) that contains the authority and reason for the applicant’s separation. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would appear in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file this application within the 3- year statue of limitations prescribed by law.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016875
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. In his request for discharge, the applicant also acknowledged that he understood that, if his request for discharge was accepted, he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. At the time, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate; however, if warranted, the discharge authority may direct an honorable...