| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Member | |
| Ms. Lana E. McGlynn | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a more favorable discharge that will afford him the opportunity to utilize his benefits.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that an error was made when he was issued an undesirable discharge because he served with a top secret unit that is also not indicated on his DD Form 214.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in Los Angeles, California, on 19 December 1973, for a period of 3 years, training as a wheel vehicle mechanic and assignment to the United States Army Combat Development Experimentation Command (USACDEC) at Fort Ord, California. He was assigned to Fort Ord to undergo his training.
On 5 April 1974, while attending his advanced individual training (AIT), nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for being absent from his place of duty. His punishment consisted of restriction and extra duty.
He completed his training and was assigned to the USACDEC at Fort Ord on 28 May 1974. He did not have a security clearance; however, he had a completed Entrance National Agency Check (ENTNAC).
On 30 September 1974, NJP was imposed against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 25 September through 29 September 1974. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.
He again went AWOL from 17 October through 13 November 1974 and from 15 November through 18 November 1974.
The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s administrative discharge are not present in the available records. However, his records do contain a duly constituted report of separation (DD Form214) signed by the applicant which shows that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 30 January 1975, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had served 1 year and 5 days of total active service and had 37 days of lost time due to AWOL.
There is no indication in the available records which shows 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 voluntary 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 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 was at that time and is still 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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that 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 therefore 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. 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 number and length of his absences during a short period of time.
4. The applicant’s contentions have been considered by the Board. However, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to his overall record of undistinguished service.
5. 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.
6. 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
___tsk___ __lem___ ___fe ___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002072256 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/08/13 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1975/01/30 |
| 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 | CY2002 | 2002068933C070402
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The Board considered the following evidence: A request for discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial requires a voluntary request on the part of the individual concerned.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080332C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 26 January 1976, the applicant's commander advised the applicant of his rights and preferred charges against him for the AWOL offense. There is no evidence in the available records to 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 | CY2003 | 2003085088C070212
The evidence of record shows that on 22 January 1975, the applicant consulted with counsel and submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service. The evidence of record shows the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable with a punitive discharge under the UCMJ. It also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and the Board believes that the applicant was aware of that before...
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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003313
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that her undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 19 July 1974, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations General), chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100001C070208
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. The application submitted in this case is dated 12 August 2003.
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 | 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 | 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 | CY2005 | 20050001203C070206
Michael Flynn | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. He reenlisted on 31 May 1977 for a period of 3 years and on 27 January 1979, he was transferred to Schweinfurt, Germany. 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.