| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. G. E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Mr. William D. Powers | Member | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, his civilian incarceration for reckless driving is what led to his discharge and feels that the discharge is in error. He further states that he has been a productive member of his community for the years since his discharge and feels that discharge was not a result of his personal actions but due to his time served for reckless driving.
COUNSEL CONTENDS: That the applicant has continued to be an asset to his community and avers that the discharge was unduly harsh.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant entered active duty on 29 June 1970 and completed basic combat training without incident.
During advanced individual training (AIT) the applicant was reported absent without leave (AWOL) from 20 September through 6 October 1970 (17 days) and was incarcerated by civilian authorities from 7 October through 10 October 1970.
The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for AWOL.
The applicant was reported AWOL from 10 January through 19 May 1971, 14 June through 21 July 1971, and 2 August 1971 through 11 February 1972, for a total of 362 days. The applicant was held in military confinement from 17 February through 17 March 1972.
On 17 February 1972, court-martial charges were preferred for three periods of AWOL and the applicant was afforded physical and psychiatric examinations. These examinations found no physical or mental defects that warranted medical disposition. He met the medical retention standards of Army Regulation 40-501 and was qualified for separation.
After consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 10. He acknowledged he had been advised of and understood his rights under the UCMJ, that he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions which would deprive him of many or all of his benefits as a veteran, that he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received an undesirable discharge, and that there is no automatic upgrading or review of a less than honorable discharge.
The discharge authorities approved the request for discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, directed that the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade (E-1), and receive an undesirable discharge.
The applicant was discharged on 24 March 1972. He had 6 months and 8 days of creditable service and 413 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
On 23 April 1975, the Army Discharge Review Board considered his case and determined that no relief was warranted.
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. An under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.
The Manual for Courts-Martial, Table of Maximum Punishments, sets forth the maximum punishments for offenses chargeable under the UCMJ. A punitive discharge is authorized for offenses under Article 86, for periods of AWOL in excess of 30 days.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, and 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. His service is appropriately characterized by his overall record.
2. There is no documentation to show that his discharge was unduly harsh, in fact the applicant could have faced a significantly harsher discharge had his request for discharge in lieu of court-martial not been accepted.
3. 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.
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.
| CASE ID | AR2002072451 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021217 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144. |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070695C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100015566
On 10 December 1971, court-martial charges were preferred against him for this period of AWOL. In his request for discharge, he acknowledged he understood if the discharge request was approved, he may be discharged under conditions other than honorable and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067929C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. As a result, a member of the Judge Advocate General Corps sent him a letter acknowledging his request, explaining what a discharge for the good of the service entailed, explaining what his rights were in conjunction with his request, telling him that if his request was accepted he could expect to receive a undesirable discharge, and providing him the number of undesirable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004444C070206
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant provides his self authored statement, Honorable Discharge Certificate, and Certificate of Military Service. These documents verify that the applicant received an honorable discharge for active service from 25 January 1968 through 19 June 1970.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080004570
His records do not show any significant acts of valor during his military service. Item 44 (Time Lost Under Section 972, Title 10, United States Code) of the applicant DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows the applicant was reported absent without leave (AWOL) during the periods 23 January 1970 to 27 February 1970; 2 May 1971 to 2 June 1971; 6 December 1971 to 20 January 1972; 13 March 1972 to 19 March 1972; and 16 April 1972 to 7 May 1972. On 5 June 1972, the separation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013858
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The applicant's DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows that he was discharged on 15 December 1972 under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) in lieu of trial by court-martial with an undesirable discharge, with service characterized as under conditions other than honorable. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058577C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. He did not complete his airborne training and received orders transferring him to Fort Lewis, Washington with a report date of 25 April 1971.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007617
The applicant states, in effect, that he did not know the marijuana was on his person and that he did not make a habit of possessing marijuana. On 15 September 1972, the applicant was separated with an undesirable discharge under the provisions chapter 10, Army regulation 635-200. There is no available evidence to show that possession of marijuana was the offense for which the applicant requested discharge to avoid trial by court martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021332
On 28 May 1973, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be issued an undesirable discharge. On 3 May 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. There is no policy, regulation, directive or law that provides for the automatic upgrade of a less than honorable discharge from military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017697
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to honorable. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is considered appropriate.