| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Member | |
| Ms. Lana E. McGlynn | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to General, under honorable conditions.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was very young and was discharged because he got married without his commander’s permission and went on leave without permission. He was young and dumb then. He is now disabled.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was born on 3 June 1953.
On 21 August 1970, he enlisted in the Regular Army, when he was over 17 years of age.
During the periods 10 November 1970 through 12 February 1971 and 24 February through 17 May 1971, he was absent without leave (AWOL).
On 19 May 1971, the unit commander preferred court-martial charges against him for being AWOL.
On 25 May 1971, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He acknowledged that he could receive a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge; that he was guilty of the charges against him; that he had consulted with legal counsel; and that he had no desire to perform further military service.
On 26 May 1971, a physical examination cleared him for separation.
On 21 June 1971, the appropriate separation authority approved his request, directed his reduction to pay grade E-1 and directed that a UD be issued.
On 23 June 1971, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, with a discharge under conditions other than honorable, under the above-cited regulation. His separation document indicates he had 4 months and 8 days of creditable service and 178 days of lost time based on the periods of AWOL.
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service), then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provided, in pertinent part, that a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could at any time after the charges had been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good
of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. At the time of the applicant’s separation, the regulation provided for the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
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 applicant chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial. Although he may now feel that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.
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 type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
4. The Board considered the applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time, however, this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief. The Board notes that the applicant was AWOL on two occasions for lengthy periods of time.
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
_LEM___ _TSK___ _FNE____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002072957 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020813 |
| 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 | CY2003 | 2003083912C070212
On the same date, the separation authority approved separation under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200 with a UD. On 19 February 1975, as a result of a records review, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. However, at the time of the applicant's separation, the regulation provided for the issuance of a UD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707418
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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 are preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant was charged with the commission of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064153C070421
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060017033C071029
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD). On 8 May 1972, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The evidence of record further shows that after being AWOL from his AIT unit for 147 days, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in his receiving a punitive discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074024C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 7 July 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied his request for upgrade of his discharge. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087897C070212
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 | CY2002 | 2002081496C070215
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. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The Board determined that the applicant’s overall military service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel sufficient to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710984
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710592
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005964C070205
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 11 January 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060005964 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Although the enlistment documentation is not of record, the records show the applicant reenlisted for three years on 21 April 1971. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has...