| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Paula Mokulis | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, upgrade of his discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That he volunteered to go to Europe and his commander and first sergeant got upset with him and unleashed unnecessary pressures, which caused his demise. Under conditions that soldiers were subjected to at that time, he believes he was singled out and given no other alternative. This is an injustice that has damaged his entire life and still has a negative hold on the most positive thing he tries to do. He states that he was denied his right to be a soldier and he has his patriotism to this country tarnished.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's available military records show:
On 1 December 1972, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army. He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 76Y (Armor/Unit Supply Specialist). He was advanced to pay grade E-2, effective 1 April 1973.
On 3 December 1973, the unit commander preferred court-martial charges against him for being absent without leave for the period 10 August to 14 November 1973.
Although not in the available records, the evidence shows that 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 9 January 1974, the appropriate separation authority approved his request, directed his reduction to pay grade E-1 and directed that an Undesirable Discharge Certificate be issued.
On 21 January 1974, a physical examination and a mental status evaluation cleared him for separation.
On 31 January 1974, the unit commander requested revocation of the approved Chapter 10 discharge for the applicant. The applicant was AWOL on 6, 7, 8, 13 and 14 January 1974. He was in military confinement during the period 15 to 17 January 1974. He went AWOL again on 25 January 1974 and apparently returned on 11 February 1974, in time to be discharged.
On 11 February 1974, 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 10 months and 13 days of creditable service and 122 days of lost time.
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.
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.
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 applicant has provided no evidence to show his AWOL was caused by his chain of command.
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.
TERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
_LLS____ _PM____ _DPH___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002073314 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020806 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065803C070421
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he asked for a general discharge for the good of the service, because he was having family problems. On 13 May 1974, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant of being AWOL from 12 February to 8 May 1974. On 28 May 1974, 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 a discharge UOTHC.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019595
The immediate commander cited the applicant's extensive history of AWOL. On 6 June 1974, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for 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 DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003672C070205
David Tucker | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. 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. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must indicate that they are submitting the request of their own free will, without coercion from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062783C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 17 October 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. There is no evidence in the available records to demonstrate that the applicant’s punishment was unfair.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018091
The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. In his request for discharge, he acknowledged he understood if the discharge request were approved, he might be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. A review of his record shows he repeatedly went AWOL and he had almost 8 months of lost time due to being AWOL or in confinement at the time of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080000673
The applicant requests correction of Item 21 (Time Lost) of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) from 188 days to the correct number of days. He was subsequently authorized 11 days leave effective 19 April 1973. This form further confirms the applicant completed a total of 10 months and 10 days of creditable active military service with 188 days of lost time due to AWOL.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087374C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to either an honorable or general discharge. The applicant advised the agents at the time that he would go AWOL again if he was not discharged.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072055C070403
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: EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067842C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He had served 1 year, 8 months and 28 days of total active service and had 97 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against them or of a lesser included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and they must indicate...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001066187C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The ADRB denied his request on 7 November 1974. 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 request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.