| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. G. E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheeler | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Member | |
| Mr. Charles Gainor . | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his type of discharge and pay grade at time of discharge be changed.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, he "never went before a court-martial" and that his "record was so very good before I messed-up." He states that he is sorry and asks for help. In support of his request he submits a copy of his prior Honorable Discharge Certificate, a copy of a 1977 Letter of Commendation, four certificates of completion for post-service training as a correctional officer for the state of Texas, and three letters of recommendation that he received as a correctional officer.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted in the Army Reserve on 14 December 1973. He enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 31 July 1974. He served as an atomic munitions demolition specialist and reenlisted on 1 February 1978.
On 30 June 1978, he was reported AWOL (absent without leave) and was dropped from the rolls as a deserter on 29 July 1978. The applicant surrendered to civilian authorities on 21 May 1981.
Court-martial charges were preferred under Article 85, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for desertion. The original charge stated that the applicant absented himself with intent to remain absent and that the civil police had apprehended him.
On 29 May 1981, 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 trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 10. He acknowledged he had been advised of and understood his rights. He acknowledged that he could receive an UOTHC discharge, which would deprive him of many or all of his benefits as a veteran. He was informed that he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received an UOTHC discharge, and that there is no automatic upgrading or review of a less than honorable discharge.
Although the applicant's company commander recommended that this request be accepted, the court-martial authority elected to continue the court-martial proceedings.
On 30 June 1981, an offer to plead guilty was proposed with the stipulations that the convening authority suspend any confinement at hard labor, suspend any reduction in grade, and suspend any bad conduct discharge, if so adjudged, for 6 months, to be remitted at that time unless sooner vacated.
The applicant pled guilty, except for the words "and with intent to remain away there from permanently", "in desertion", and "he was apprehended". The applicant pled not guilty to the excepted words and to the charge of violation of Article 85 but guilty to violation of Article 86, being AWOL. The applicant's plea was accepted and he was found guilty of violation of Article 86. His sentence consisted of reduction to the grade of private E-1; forfeiture of $300 per month for five months, confinement at hard labor for five months, and discharge from the service with a bad conduct discharge. The convening authority approved the sentence according to the pretrial agreement by reducing the forfeiture to $150 per month for five months, suspending the reduction, confinement, and the bad conduct discharge. The case was sent for review by the U.S. Court of Military Review.
On 5 August 1981, the applicant was placed in a monitored probation status, which he successfully completed. The unexecuted portion on his sentence was properly vacated upon completion of the provisions of his probation.
The applicant went AWOL a second time from 8 March 1982 through 1 August 1982. Although the discharge packet is not of record, the evidence of record shows that the applicant again requested that he be discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10.
The applicant was discharged on 10 September 1982, under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, with a characterization of under other than honorable conditions. The narrative reason for separation is "Administrative discharge, conduct triable by court-martial." The applicant had a total of 5 years, 10 months, and 4 days of creditable service with 1203 days lost due to AWOL.
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 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, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record.
2. The applicant's request for an upgrade based on good post-service conduct is noted; however; there is no available evidence of record of any activities that are so exceptionally meritorious as to outweigh the offenses of record that resulted in his discharge.
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 | AR2002072540 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021003 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010849
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 23 October 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080010849 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The convening authority directed that the applicant be credited with 250 days of confinement against the sentence to confinement and reprimanded the applicant for his misconduct. 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.
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2005-107
The date led up to approxi- mately 4 days prior to his discharge.” She stated that her mother told her that her father had been “pushed out of the military due to the fact that WWII was over and they were getting rid of men any way they could.” She further stated that as a former member of the Coast Guard herself, she wants “to be able to go to my father’s grave and put a flag upon it with pride to know that I was able to overturn this for him.” APPLICABLE LAW Article 459 of the Personnel...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2006-072
In his application for correc- tion, he alleged that he waited to submit his request because “I was told to wait, keep a clean record, then ask for the BCD1 [bad conduct discharge] removed.” SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 1 Pursuant to a sentence by a Special Court Martial dated May 3, 1963, the applicant was ordered to be discharged from the Coast Guard with a bad conduct discharge. The record indicates that his character of service was “conditions other than honorable.” In 1975, the applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02101
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02101 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 10 March 1986, the applicant was furnished a general discharge for Misconduct (Drug Abuse) and was credited with 4 years, 10 months, and 6 days of total active service. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070017013
In accordance with Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records is not empowered to set aside a conviction. However, there is no evidence that indicates the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. As a result, there is insufficient basis to upgrade the applicant's discharge to an honorable or a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110022700
This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. The applicant has not provided any documentary evidence to support his contention that the convening authority agreed to grant him clemency or to change the characterization of his discharge to under honorable conditions. _______ _X _______...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014369
This form further shows the applicant's character of service as bad conduct discharge and that he completed 3 years, 6 months, and 21 days of creditable military service. There is no indication in the applicant's records that he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that Board's 15-year statute of limitations. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulation, and the discharge appropriately characterized...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011492
On 5 April 1982, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) for misconduct. On 14 April 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of misconduct and directed he be furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007199
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). In accordance with Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records is not empowered to set aside a conviction. _______ _ _x_____ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140021297
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 July 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140021297 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states, in effect, that his case was an isolated incident and that there were no alcohol/drug treatment services available at the time of his service. Special Court-Martial Order Number 106, dated 3 August 1983, shows the convening authority approved the sentence.