| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller . | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Member | ||
| Mr. Charles Gainor | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he went on leave for 2 weeks because of severe domestic problems. His wife had ran away leaving his two children ages 4 and 6 with his mother who at that time had cancer. It took several weeks to make arrangements for the care of his children. After being away for 7 weeks, he returned to his duty station just to find out he was classified as being absent without leave (AWOL). He was offered the choice of a court-martial or discharge under other than honorable conditions. He decided to take the discharge, so that he could return home to take care of his mother and two children. The applicant submits with his applications a VA Form 21-4138 (Statement in Support of Claim).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 5 January 1970, the applicant reenlisted the Regular Army for 3 years with
4 years, 5 months and 6 days of honorable active service. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 31B20 (Field Radio Mechanic). The applicant record indicates that he retained his rank of pay grade E-5.
On 15 September 1970, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant of breaking restriction and for being AWOL from 14 April to 7 July 1970 and from 7 to 30 August 1970. The applicant’s record indicates that at least on one occasion of being AWOL the applicant was apprehended by civil authorities and release to military authorities.
On 18 September 1970, after consulting with legal counsel the applicant voluntarily without any coercion 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 acknowledged, that he understood the elements of the offense charged. The applicant waived further rehabilitation and was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions. He acknowledged that he understood, that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf, but decline to do so.
On the same day, the company commander, recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.
On 5 October 1970, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge, reduced the applicant to the lowest enlisted grade and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On the same day, 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 an undesirable discharge. He completed 5 months and 6 days of creditable active military service and 116 days of time lost.
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.
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, duress or that his rights were violated in any way.
3. The applicant alleges, that he went AWOL because he was having personal problems. There is no evidence in his record to show that his command was aware of the type or extent of his personal problems. The Board notes that the applicant would not discuss his problems when he was afforded the opportunity do so on 18 September 1970. While the Board is empathetic, the applicant's personal problems are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
4. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s requests.
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
__INW__ ___WTM___ __CG __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR202076297 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/10/03 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1970/10/5 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200,chp10 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A71.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1.144.7100 | |
| 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 | CY2008 | 20080014451
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. His mother did not want him to go to Vietnam; however, having completed basic training, the first thing he had ever tried away from home, he thought he could handle anything. The separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service and directed that the applicant be reduced to pay grade E-1 and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018210
The applicant requests an upgrade of discharge from an under other than honorable conditions discharge to general discharge. c. When he was at the airport in St. Louis waiting to return to Vietnam, his unit in Vietnam sent a message through the Red Cross directing him to assign himself to Fort Leonard Wood. Based on the seriousness of his misconduct, and in view of the fact that he voluntarily requested discharge in order to avoid a trial by court-martial that could have resulted in a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080015579
The applicant requests reconsideration of an earlier request that his undesirable discharge be upgraded. The applicant provided a letter of support from a Veterans Affairs Officer which essentially states, in effect, the applicant's discharge should be upgraded based on his honorable service during the Vietnam conflict and the hardships his family was experiencing at the time. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003622C070205
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 September 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060003622 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. The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070018612
Director Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: M Chairperson M Member M Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his Undesirable Discharge (UD) be upgraded.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012987
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. An Undesirable Discharge Certificate would normally be furnished an individual who was discharged for the good of the Service. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011619
There is no evidence indicating he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgraded of his discharge. Based on the seriousness of his misconduct, and in view of the fact that he voluntarily requested to be discharged in order to avoid a trial by court-martial that could have resulted in a punitive discharge, his overall record of service did not support the issuance of an honorable or general discharge by the separation authority at the time and it does not support an upgrade of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088072C070403
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, also provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009323
The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge. The applicant states he would like his discharge upgraded so he can receive some benefits. The applicant has submitted no substantive evidence showing his problems at home were the cause of his going AWOL.