| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. Wagner | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Ms. Margaret V. Thompson | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to general.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was the only surviving son of a first marriage and his half brother was dying of a rare cancer at the time of his discharge. He contends that he went absent without leave (AWOL) because of his half brother’s illness.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted on 7 August 1973 for a period of 3 years. He successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual training in military occupational specialty 13A (field artillery basic crewman).
On 29 January 1974, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 18 December 1973 to 9 January 1974. His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1 (suspended for 60 days), a forfeiture of pay and restriction.
On 2 July 1974, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 20 February 1974 to 24 February 1974 and from 28 February 1974 to 15 May 1974. He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 45 days, to forfeit $150 pay per month for 2 months and to be reduced to E-1. On 17 July 1974, the convening authority approved the sentence but remitted the unexecuted portion of the sentence to confinement at hard labor and the forfeiture of pay.
The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not contained in the available records; however, his records show that he was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 26 July 1974 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. He had served 8 months and 9 days of total active service with 102 days lost due to AWOL.
There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.
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. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.
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 Board noted the applicant’s claim of family problems which led to his decision to go AWOL. However, the Board determined that the claim of family problems is not sufficient by itself as a basis for upgrading his discharge.
2. The Board reviewed the applicant’s brief record of service which included one nonjudicial punishment, one special court-martial conviction and 102 days lost and determined that his record of service was not satisfactory. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to a general discharge.
3. 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.
4. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation appear to be appropriate.
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
RJW___ LE______ MVT_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002073425 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020808 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19740726 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 Chapter 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | For the good of the service |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0200 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070016565
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 22 May 1975, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. His brother stated that their brother died in a car accident on 29 November 1974 and their whole family requested that the applicant be at the funeral.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020966
On 22 December 1971, court-martial charges were preferred against him for one specification of being AWOL during the period on or about 23 September 1971 through on or about 29 November 1971. On 29 February 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service - in lieu of court-martial in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged for the good of the service - in lieu of a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009567
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant, the brother of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests an upgrade of his late brother's under other than honorable discharge to an honorable discharge. On 4 June 1971, the appropriate separation authority approved the FSMs requests under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate and reduction to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014732
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 19 April 1974, the applicant requested a discharge for the good of the Service under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200. The applicant's military service records contain his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) that shows he was discharged on 11 June 1974, under other than honorable conditions, in accordance with the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, paragraph 10-1, for the good of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016830
On 11 August 1971, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 17 August 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018209
On 5 August 1974, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068441C070402
On 6 March 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant of being AWOL from 8 October 1974 to 28 February 1975. On 28 April 1975, 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 UD. On 22 June 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110012858
e. He was not absent without leave (AWOL) during the period 13 November 1968 through 4 February 1969 or 4 April 1970 through 4 March 1971, but was on base performing his military duties instead and as a result his record should be corrected to show he completed 1 year, 5 months, and 22 days military service instead of the 4 months it currently shows. On 10 February 1971, the applicants battalion commander issued a memorandum for record and stated: a. the applicant was interviewed on 14...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014513
x The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's record of service shows he received two Article 15s, one for wrongfully using marijuana and one for being AWOL for 5 days, and he was convicted by a special court-martial for being AWOL for 40 days.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080019932
The applicant requests an upgrade of his "general" discharge to "honorable." In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charges against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a discharge under other honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under...