| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adraince | Analyst |
| Ms. JoAnn H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III | Member | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by upgrading his undesirable discharge (UD) to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, his discharge should be upgraded because he was injured in the service and because he was supposed to get a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD). His application for reconsideration was submitted through a Member of Congress, who requested that his case be reviewed and an assessment be provided.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case (AR2000041508) on
28 September 2000.
The applicant served on active duty in the Regular Army from 24 July 1973 until 4 November 1975. At that time, he was separated with an UD after completing a total of 2 years, 1 month, and 6 days of creditable active military service and having accrued 67 days of lost time due to AWOL.
The applicant’s record shows that the only award or decorations the applicant received during his active duty tenure were the National Defense Service Medal and the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Badge (Rifle). There are no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition documented in his record.
However, the applicant’s record does reveal a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of
Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on 4 April 1975, for two specifications of failure to go to his appointed place of duty. He was also AWOL from 19 to 21 May 1975; and on 5 August 1975, he departed his unit AWOL and remained away until being apprehended by civil authorities on 9 October 1975.
The applicant’s medical records confirm that on 22 October 1975, he underwent a separation physical examination and was cleared for separation by competent medical authorities. There is no indication in this examination that the applicant suffered from a disabling medical condition at that time.
The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant on the date of his separation from active duty confirms that he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service/
in lieu of trial by court-martial. On the date of his discharge, the applicant authenticated his DD Form 214 with his signature in Item 29 (Signature of Person Being Separated), thereby, verifying the information contained therein.
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 contentions that his discharge should be upgraded because he was injured at the time and because he was told that he would receive a GD. However, it finds insufficient evidence to support these claims.
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 a properly constituted DD Form 214, which identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge. This document was authenticated by the applicant with his signature on the date of his discharge, in effect, verifying the information contained therein. Thus, the Board presumes Government regularity in the discharge process.
3. Notwithstanding the applicant’s claim that he was told he would receive a GD, the evidence of record confirms that he was discharged 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 to be advised on the impact of an UD, and subsequently to voluntarily request separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.
4. The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments, are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.
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
_ _JHL_ _ __TBF__ __RWA__ DENY APPLICATION
Carl W. S. Chun
| CASE ID | AR2002071613 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | AR2000041508 |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/07/09 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1975/11/04 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070009411C080407
An UOTHC discharge normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial; however, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an UD. However, it does confirm he was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge, and that he voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in his receiving a punitive discharge. The evidence of record...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004040C070208
Powers | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 1 March 1975, the applicant was discharged accordingly. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012515
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 11 March 1975, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005268
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). It also shows that he was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of administrative discharge for conduct triable by court-martial. 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 | DRB | CY2005 | 20050006052
On 20 November 1975, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. There is no evidence in his military record nor did the applicant submit any evidence in support of his allegation. Therefore, given the circumstances in this case and his overall undistinguished record of service, there is insufficient evidence to support his request at this time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070006916C071029
On 3 May 1974, the applicant accepted NJP for breaking restriction. The separations regulation states that an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. _____Hubert O. Fry______ CHAIRPERSON INDEX |CASE ID |AR20070006916 | |SUFFIX | | |RECON | | |DATE BOARDED |2007/10/23 | |TYPE OF DISCHARGE |UD | |DATE OF DISCHARGE |1975/11/20 | |DISCHARGE AUTHORITY |AR 635-200 C10 | |DISCHARGE REASON...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070007333C071029
The record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 that shows the applicant 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. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051876C070420
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he had served on active duty for 24 months when he made a foolish mistake by accepting an administrative discharge. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: It also shows that at the time of his separation he had completed a total of 2 years and 29 days of active military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011635C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge, and/or that he receive a medical discharge. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge to either an honorable discharge or medical discharge was carefully considered. As a result, there is insufficient evidence showing the applicant suffered from a medical condition that warranted his processing for separation through medical channels at the time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004105870C070208
On 10 September 1975, the applicant was discharged accordingly. There is no indication in the record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15- year statute of limitations. 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.