| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Thomas A. Pagan | Member | ||
| Ms. Barbara J. Lutz | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that being 17 years of age and being married with a daughter and experiencing marital problems impaired his ability to serve in the Army. He states that he twice requested leave from his chain command to resolve his martial problems before going absent without leave (AWOL). He also states that he now understands that his going AWOL did not resolve any of his martial and family problems. In addition, he claims that he now suffers from Parkinson disease and is required to take 42 pills daily, and his income does not cover the cost of his monthly expenses, and his present wife sacrificed her job to provide him full time care. He finally states that he regrets that he missed a golden opportunity to serve the Army and that his actions at the age of 17 will not be held against him, and an upgrade of his discharge would improve his quality of life.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 15 December 1972, the applicant entered the Army for a period of 3 years. His record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition and it confirms that highest rank he attained on active duty was private (E-1).
The applicant was assigned to Fort Knox, Kentucky for basic combat training (BCT) and advanced individual training (AIT). Prior to completing BCT, on
24 January 1973, he accepted nonjudical punishment (NJP) for wrongfully possessing and using some quantity of marijuana.
While attending AIT, the applicant went AWOL from 5 April through 17 June 1973. After returning to military control and being placed in confinement, the applicant escaped custody and again departed AWOL on 26 June 1973. He remained AWOL for 48 days until returning to military control on 12 August 1973.
On 21 August 1973 the applicant was notified that court-martial charges were being preferred against him for two periods of AWOL, and for escaping correctional custody.
On 28 August 1973, the applicant consulted legal counsel and was advised of the bases for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum punishment authorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the possible effects of an UD, and of the rights available to him. Subsequent to this counseling, the applicant voluntarily submitted a request to be discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. His accompanying statement outlined his personal problems, and contained his stated intention to continue to go AWOL if his discharge were not approved.
On 7 September 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, and directed that the applicant receive an UD. On 17 September 1973, the applicant was discharged accordingly after completing a total of 5 months and 3 days of creditable active military service and accruing 122 days of time lost due to AWOL.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue of limitation.
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. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable 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. The Board notes the applicant’s contentions that his discharge should be upgraded because his ability to serve was impaired by his youth and by the marital problems he was experiencing at the time; and because of his current medical problems that are hampering his quality of life. However, it finds that these factors are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations in effect at the time and that the type of discharge he received accurately reflects his overall record of service.
3. The applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. After consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. The Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.
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
__KAK__ __TAP__ __BJL__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002076030 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/10/29 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1973 09 17 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200. . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | For The Good of the Service |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY, |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.0033 |
| 2. | 144.9307 |
| 3. | 144.7000 |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014490
He remained absent until on or about 2 March 1970 when he returned to military control at Fort Hood, TX. On 20 November 1973, the applicant consulted with counsel and he voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. For his first period of AWOL, he was given NJP and a light punishment.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027901
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 11 July 1979, the appropriate separation authority voided his 1976 enlistment under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-15a(1), based on his concealment of his 1975 discharge under other than honorable conditions. His military records contain no evidence which would entitle him to an upgrade of his 1975 discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018476
These are the reasons he could not perform his military duties. On 15 September 1972, he requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. The DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709756C070209
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. The Board considered the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011943
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. 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. James E....
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709756
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. The evidence of record...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075305C070403
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. 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: After considering his overall record of service with regard to the Presidential Proclamation 4313 program, the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040009518C070208
There is no indication the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a discharge upgrade with that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 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. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003412C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). The applicant’s request for discharge was approved and on 16 February 1970, he was separated from active duty with an UD. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | AR20080000394
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD), characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), be changed to a hardship discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show, to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise appear, that the record is in error or unjust.