| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr. | Analyst |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Member | |
| Mr. Ronald J. Weaver | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Upgrade of his discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was illegally enlisted, that he was not old enough to enlist and that he was promised that if there was a problem with the Army he could get out. In support of his contention he submits a copy of a Birth Registration Card allegedly showing his date of birth a 22 July 1955 and that, in effect, his age was 17 years, 8 months and 6 days old when he enlisted.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted on 28 March 1973. His date of birth was 22 July 1954; he was 18 years, 8 months and 6 days old and a high school graduate. All enlistment documents and all other service record documents list the same date of birth.
He enlisted for station of choice option at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. He completed basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and was stationed at Fort Bragg for on the job training in his MOS (military occupational specialty) on 28 June 1973. He was convicted by a special court-martial of absence without leave (AWOL) from 12 to 28 September 1973 and from 1 to 10 October 1973 and for disobeying a lawful order.
Following confinement the applicant received three nonjudicial punishments under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ: On 5 February 1974 for assault, on 10 April 1974 for a 2-day AWOL and on 11 April 1974 for willful disobedience of a commissioned officer. Notwithstanding this indiscipline, he was advanced to pay grade E-4 on 13 December 1974.
He was AWOL from 8 March to 11 July 1975 and when charges were preferred under the UCMJ the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. He acknowledged that he was guilty as charged or guilty of a lesser-included offense that could also result in a punitive discharge. He also acknowledged that he understood the nature and consequences of the under other than honorable conditions discharge that he might receive, including that he might forfeit any or all veteran benefits under both Federal land state law.
He submitted a statement that read, "It is my desire to request a discharge from the Army because [it] is hard to adjust [to] the military life because I have had about 4 AWOLs and 5 Article 15s and one court-martial and [this] shows that I can’t adjust to the military. I'm causing the Army trouble and me because I really can’t adjust. So, I'm giving up trying."
A 16 July 1975 physical examination found the applicant qualified for separation. At a mental status evaluation he displayed behavior normal. He was fully alert, and oriented. He displayed a level mood, normal thought content and a good memory. He was considered to have no significant mental illness. He was mentally responsible, able to tell right from wrong and to adhere to the right. He had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.
The separation authority approved the applicant's request and directed that an Undesirable Discharge Certificate be issued. On 27 August 1975 the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He had 7 months and 24 days of creditable service and 276 days lost time .
On 7 June 1989 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered the applicant's contention that he had been improperly enlisted, that he was only
17 years old and had only a 10th grade education. He averred that the recruiter was the instigator of this deception. The ADRB denied his appeal.
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. There is no corroborating evidence to show that the proffered birth registration form is correct. Even if it is, there is no substantiating evidence to show that the recruiter was involved in the deception or that the recruiter informed the applicant that he could get out of the Army upon request.
2. Furthermore, the contentions and evidence are not convincing, because the applicant underwent trial by court-martial, consulted with legal counsel again before completing the request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial and submitted a statement in his own behalf; without ever raising the issue of his age or the alleged promise.
3. 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. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
4. 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.
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
____MHM__ __CLG__ _RJW_ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002074970 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030204 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19750827 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, Ch 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A70.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | A99.05 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | CY2003 | 2003090324C070212
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 13 August 1975, the applicant submitted a request to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service which includes over 200 days of AWOL, at least five non-judicial punishments, and one court martial conviction in a period of less than three years.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110012329
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065555C070421
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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The Board notes the applicant’s contentions that his discharge was unjust, his recruiter...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057484C070420
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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. On 4 February 1975 the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge for the good of the service and directed that he be issued an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140009020
The applicant requests upgrade of his discharge to honorable and correction of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty). On 22 July 1976, the applicant appeared in person before the ADRB and testified under oath that * he enlisted to better his education and or training to get some kind of training that he couldn't otherwise get or afford * he first started having problems in the service when he couldn't get an allotment for his wife * the entire time he was in Germany it...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010783C070208
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Upon successful completion of the alternate service, former members would be granted a clemency discharge by the President of the United States, thus restoring his or her affected civil rights.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100000066
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 8 January 1975, the applicant's unit commander recommended approval of the applicant's request for discharge with the issuance of a UD Certificate. On 8 January 1975, the applicant's battalion commander recommended approval of the applicant's request for discharge with the issuance of a UD Certificate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012381
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 court-martial on 11 March 1975 and directed issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharges within its 15-year statute of limitations. He also accepted five Article 15s under the UCMJ for three...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050016097C070206
The applicant requests that his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge to honorable. However, his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) indicates he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, on 10 March 1975, under conditions other than honorable, and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Army Regulation 635-200 also states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.