| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Paula Mokulis | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That his offense occurred due to his immaturity at the time and his inability to cope with the stress of military life. He goes on to state that when he realized the seriousness of what he had done, he feared the consequences of returning to the Army and worsened the results of staying away. He further states that he believes his good record prior to enlistment and prior to his offense as well as his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade of his discharge.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was born on 14 July 1948 and enlisted in Beckley, West Virginia, on 30 November 1973, for a period of 2 years. He completed his basic combat training at Fort Knox, Kentucky and was transferred to Fort Lee, Virginia, to undergo his advanced individual training (AIT) as a baker.
On 2 April 1974, while still in AIT, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.
On 2 May 1974, he went absent without leave (AWOL) and remained absent until he was apprehended by civil authorities in Pompano Beach, Florida, on 24 April 1975, and was returned to military control at Fort Gordon, Georgia, where charges were preferred against him on 1 May 1975.
On 2 May 1975, 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 also admitted that he was guilty of the charges against him or of lesser-included offenses which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. He further elected to submit a statement in his own behalf whereas he asserted that he hated the Army and believed that it had messed up his life. He further indicated that he did not believe that a discharge under other than honorable conditions would have any effect on him and he did not care. He indicated that he believed that he had no potential for rehabilitation and requested that the Army waive the 72-hour waiting period so that he could get out.
The appropriate authority (a major general) approved his request on 20 May 1975 and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 11 June 1975, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had served 6 months and 15 days of total active service and had 357 days of lost time due to AWOL.
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.
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 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 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 therefor 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. In doing so he admitted guilt to the charges against him. 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 length of his absence as well as his otherwise undistinguished record of service during such a short period of time.
4. The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions. However, he was 25 years of age at the time of his enlistment and was old enough to be responsible for his actions at the time. Accordingly, the Board finds no evidence that is sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
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
___ls ___ ___pm__ __dh____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002071401 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/08/06 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1975/06/11 |
| 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. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090279C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 7 January 1975, 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. He also contended that he was misled by his defense attorney and did not know that he was going to get an undesirable discharge until he received it and that up until that time he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064363C070421
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 an 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 briefed and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022821
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 July 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120022821 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090702C070212
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 honorable. The appropriate authority (a major general) approved the request for discharge on 12 November 1976 and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions.
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 | CY2002 | 2002072626C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He requested that he be given a general discharge. The ADRB reviewed his medical records and noted that the applicant had been seen for a history of knee problems, both on the day of his injury and for a period of 9 months.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019499
Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20100029033, on 9 June 2011. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. Unfortunately, the facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not present in the available records for the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001297
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. He goes on to state that his discharge was based on one incident in more than 2 years of a relatively clean record. 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 boards 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027868
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 22 March 1976 nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty (Guard Duty) and for driving while under the influence of alcohol.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088571C070403
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...