| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Member | |
| Mr. Charles Gainor | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That her discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that her discharge under other than honorable conditions should be upgraded to at least a general discharge based on hardship reasons. In support of her application she submits copies of medical records showing that her mother is disabled, and documents showing that she has debts of mortgages, loans, taxes and utilities.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records, though somewhat incomplete, show:
She initially enlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) on 10 July 1998 and was discharged on 28 December 1998, under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-178, for failure to participate satisfactorily. Her service was uncharacterized.
She enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 June 2000 and went absent without leave (AWOL) from Fort Polk, Louisiana, on 4 October 2000. She remained absent until she surrendered to military authorities at Fort Polk, Louisiana, on 8 January 2001. She was transferred to the Personnel Control Facility at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, where charges were preferred against her for the AWOL offense.
On 11 January 2001, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In her request she indicated that she was making the request of her own free will, without coercion from anyone and that she was aware of the implications attached to her request. She also admitted that she was guilty of the charges against her or of lesser included offenses which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. She acknowledged that she understood that she could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that she might be deprived of all benefits as a result of such a discharge. She further declined to submit a statement or explanation in her own behalf and also declined a separation medical examination.
The appropriate authority approved her request and directed that she be discharged under other than honorable conditions.
Accordingly, she was discharged under other than honorable conditions while on excess leave, on 21 September 2001, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. She had served 1 year and 4 days of active service during her current enlistment and had 96 days of lost time due to AWOL.
She applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of her discharge on 5 February 2002, citing the same reasons she has to this Board. The ADRB determined that she was properly and equitably discharged and voted unanimously to deny her request on 10 July 2002.
The documents submitted by the applicant with her application date back to 1997 and go through the period of her discharge.
A review of the available records fails to show that the applicant ever sought the assistance of her chain of command or that she ever surfaced her alleged problems to her chain of command. There is no evidence that she ever applied for a hardship discharge or compassionate reassignment as well.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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. 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 that they have been briefed and understand the consequences of such a request as well as the discharge they might receive. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
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’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 courtmartial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.
2. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.
3. After being afforded the opportunity to assert her innocence before a trial by court-martial, she voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a felony conviction on her records. In doing so she admitted guilt to the charges against her. While she may now believes that she made the wrong choice, she should not be allowed to change her mind at this late date, especially considering the length of her absence as well as her otherwise undistinguished record of service during such a short period of time.
4. The Board has noted the applicant’s supporting documents and finds that they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief under the circumstances. While many of her problems existed prior to her enlistment, she made no apparent attempt to seek assistance from her chain of command to resolve her problems or at least offer an explanation to explain her misconduct.
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
___cg___ ___wtm__ __inw___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002076078 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/10/03 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 2001/09/21 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/CH10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | GD OF SVC |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 689 | 144.7000/A70.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010013
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 November 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070010013 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. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120012091
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. However, his records do show that on 14 December 1976, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120012131
There is no evidence in the available records to show he ever applied to the ADRB 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 admit guilt to the charges against him or her or of a lesser-included offenses which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and he or she must indicate he or she has been briefed and understands the consequences of such...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024038
He was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 23 June 1970. There is no evidence in his official records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100023069
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 11 June 1975 after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant 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 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against him or her or of a lesser included offense which authorizes the imposition of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069737C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 April 1974 and reenlisted with a waiver for 11 days of lost time on 31 July 1974, for a period of 3 years. The appropriate authority (a brigadier general) approved his request for discharge on 31 January 1977 and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022355
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 14 May 1974, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026435
On 17 March 1977 after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. His defense counsel signed the request for discharge attesting that the applicant had been advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and all of the applicant's rights had been explained to him. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008599
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that the records of her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM), be corrected by upgrading his undesirable discharge to a general discharge under honorable conditions. There is no evidence to show the FSM applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060007407C070205
The applicant requests that the undesirable discharge of her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM), be upgraded to honorable. She also states that the FSM’s brother was just a cook and got his discharge changed and he did not see what the FSM saw in Vietnam. 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...