| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member | ||
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions.
APPLICANT STATES: That he served in the Army and did not have any felony on his records, only the offense of being absent without leave (AWOL). He was young and had never been over 20 miles from home (in Tennessee) in his life and he was scared. He asked to be discharged, but with a general discharge under honorable conditions. He provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was born on 22 September 1949. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 January 1969. He completed basic combat training at Fort Campbell, KY and advanced individual training at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, and was awarded military occupational specialty 36K (Field Communications Crewman).
The applicant arrived in Vietnam and was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Service Battery, 1st Battalion, 14th Artillery on 6 July 1969 as a wireman. He was honorably discharged on 26 September 1969 for the purpose of immediately reenlisting on 27 September 1969. On 28 September 1969, he requested a 30-day reenlistment leave back to the States. He departed on leave on or about 10 October 1969. He never returned.
On 17 November 1970, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with five specifications of AWOL for the periods 17 November 1969 to on or about 4 February 1970, 21 February to on or about 5 March 1970, 4 May to on or about 5 May 1970, 17 June to on or about 14 July 1970, and 8 August to on or about 4 November 1970.
On 25 November 1970, 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 a statement in his own behalf. He stated that he realized while in Vietnam and when he was home on leave that he should not have reenlisted. To make matters worse, he married on 23 May 1970 and his wife had four children by a previous marriage. He could not provide for his family while drawing E-3 pay and, if he were reduced, he did not know how they would make it. He realized that he would probably receive an undesirable discharge but then he could be home to take care of his family.
The company and battalion level commanders recommended disapproval of the applicant’s request and recommended he be court-martialed.
On 24 December 1970, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request and directed he receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
On 24 December 1970, 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, under other than honorable conditions discharge. He had completed 1 year, 3 months, and 29 days of creditable active service and had 213 days of 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.
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.
3. The Board notes that the applicant was 19 years old when he enlisted. He may not have been over 20 miles from home prior to his enlistment but he successfully completed advanced individual training at Fort Leonard Wood, MO and successfully served about 2 months in Vietnam. It is acknowledged that he requested discharge, but only to avoid trial by court-martial. Had the recommendations of his company and battalion level commanders been followed and had he been convicted by court-martial for AWOL, he would have had a felony on his records. There is no evidence to show he requested a general discharge under honorable conditions and in his statement he acknowledged that he would probably get an undesirable discharge. In any case, the length and frequency of his AWOLs did not warrant granting a general discharge.
4. 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
__AAO__ __KAH___ ___TL___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR200271941 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/07/30 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1970/12/24 |
| 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 | CY2013 | 20130005139
The applicant states he served his time in Vietnam. The applicant provides: * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States) * a copy of the statement he submitted with his request for discharge on 13 May 1971 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. On 6 July 1971, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service and directed that he be issued an undesirable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008599
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that the records of her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM), be corrected by upgrading his undesirable discharge to a general discharge under honorable conditions. There is no evidence to show the FSM applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091341C070212
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. The application submitted in this case is dated 20 May 2003. There is no evidence in the available records which show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010099
15. his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 4 February 1972 under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by a court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Although an honorable or a general discharge is authorized, an undesirable discharge was considered appropriate at the time the applicant was discharged. The applicant was not discharged because of his accident.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010708
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge by reason of permanent disability (medical discharge). There is no indication in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018210
The applicant requests an upgrade of discharge from an under other than honorable conditions discharge to general discharge. c. When he was at the airport in St. Louis waiting to return to Vietnam, his unit in Vietnam sent a message through the Red Cross directing him to assign himself to Fort Leonard Wood. Based on the seriousness of his misconduct, and in view of the fact that he voluntarily requested discharge in order to avoid a trial by court-martial that could have resulted in a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060006723C070205
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to at least a general discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 27 January 1972, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. There is no evidence 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 | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110006798
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. On 5 December 1967, he went AWOL and remained absent in a desertion status until he was returned to military control at Fort Meade, Maryland on 11 January 1968. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate at the time of the applicant's discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012948
He was an only child and his family members wrote to their Congressional representative trying to get him out of Vietnam. However, his records do show he submitted a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, on 18 January 1971. Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | AR20050016051C070206
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 26 August 1971, NJP was imposed against the applicant for disobeying a lawful order from a superior commissioned officer to perform his extra duty. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing...