| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | ||
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: That his service before he went absent without leave (AWOL) was honorable. He had a very sick mother and a girlfriend who said she was pregnant. He was 22 or 23 years old and under a lot of pressure. He did not know what to do and did not receive any counseling or help from the Army. He thought he had to leave to handle his problems. He provides his Report of Separation from Active Duty, DD Form 214, as supporting evidence.
COUNSEL CONTENDS: That the applicant maintains personal and family problems diminished his ability to serve. Counsel rests assured that the Board's final decision will reflect sound equitable principles consistent in law, regulation, and policy.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was born on 21 November 1952. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 April 1972 for 3 years. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13B (Field Artillery Crewman).
Between 5 April and 19 July 1974, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on six different occasions, all for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.
On 11 March 1975, charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with being AWOL from 1 October to on or about 15 October 1974 and from 16 October 1974 to on or about 5 March 1975.
On 11 March 1975, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.
On 12 March 1975, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a 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 applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge UOTHC and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. He submitted a statement in his own behalf wherein he stated that the reason he wanted out of the Army was that he could not make (sic) it anymore and he could not stand any more prejudice regarding making rank. He had a lot of personal problems at home with his wife and bill collectors that needed his attention.
On 19 March 1975, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request and directed he receive a discharge UOTHC.
On 16 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 discharge UOTHC. He had completed 2 years, 5 months, and 17 days of creditable active service and had 181 days of lost time (154 days of AWOL and 27 days of excess leave).
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 request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.
On 30 April 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded 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:
1. 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.
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 Board notes that the applicant successfully served for almost 2 years before his first Article 15 and should have been aware of avenues (e.g., his chain of command, the chaplain, or the inspector general) that could offer assistance in resolving personal problems. There is no evidence to show that he made his command or any other agency aware of any personal problems or that he attempted to resolve his problems in an administratively acceptable manner (e.g., a request for compassionate reassignment or hardship discharge) prior to his departing AWOL.
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.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__CLA__ ___MHM___ __JTM__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002075308 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/09/05 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1975/04/16 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, ch 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A70.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081847C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant was AWOL from his unit from 9-10 December 1974. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002081847SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20030722TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE19770328DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200, Chap 10 DISCHARGE REASONA71.00BOARD DECISION(DENY)REVIEW AUTHORITYISSUES 1.144.71002.3.4.5.6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058208C070421
He did not return from leave and was reported AWOL from 17 September 1974 to 24 January 1975. On 14 December 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded 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 | CY2001 | 2001059745C070421
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: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03092160C070212
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE : He requested discharge just to get out. The applicant was discharged on 2 May 1975.
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 | CY2010 | 20100015315
On 11 March 1977, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him. On 18 March 1977, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be discharged UOTHC. On 18 May 1979, the Army...
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 | CY2002 | 2002071854C070403
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: He stated that he was proud of his Vietnam service but was ashamed of the conduct which led to his court-martial and to his present situation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086756C070212
On 4 November 1975, the applicant was discharged, in the pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The Board reviewed the applicant's service records, which included two nonjudicial punishments for failure to go to duty and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000350C070205
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 31 August 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060000350 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. On 20 October 1976 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge. A punitive discharge is authorized for offenses under Article 86, for periods of AWOL in excess of 30 days.