| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Stephanie Thompkins | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Member | |
| Mr. Charles Gainor | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: This is the only bad mark against him; it has greatly affected his life and he did not know the impact this would have on his future. After leaving the Army he has been a productive member of his community, been married for 27 years, owns his own business and is currently working with the Veterans Administration to get his GED (general education diploma). He also states that he was born to a mentally challenged unwed mother and was raised by his grandmother, who died while he was in the Army. He went AWOL for a while and when he returned, he tried to talk to his superiors about his problem, but they did not seem to understand. Unfortunately, he just got out of the Army any way he could, a big mistake that he would like to change. He submits five character letters in support of his application.
The letters are supportive character references for his post service conduct.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years as a private, pay grade E-1 on 5 December 1972.
He completed his basic and advanced training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63H20, Automotive Repairman.
He was advanced to pay grade E-2 on 5 April 1973.
He was reported absent without leave (AWOL) on 15 November 1973. He was dropped from the rolls of the Army on 15 December 1973.
He surrendered to military authorities on 5 March 1974.
He was reported AWOL on 10 March 1974.
He surrendered to military authorities on 22 April 1974.
On 4 June 1974, a special court-martial convened and charged the applicant with 1 specification of being absent from his unit from on or about 15 November 1973 to on or about 5 March 1974 and 1 specification of being absent from his unit from on or about 10 March to on or about 22 April 1974.
After entering a plea of guilty to both charges, he was found guilty and sentenced to reduction to pay grade E-1, confinement at hard labor for 3 months and forfeiture of pay for 3 months. The sentence was adjudged on 16 May 1974, and approved on 4 June 1974.
On 2 July 1974 a report of mental status evaluation cleared the applicant for separation.
He was discharged on 16 July 1974, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, for unfitness, in pay grade E-1, and issued a UD certificate. He was credited with 11 months and 24 days of total net active service. He had 228 days lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the policy and prescribes the procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel. The regulation, in effect at that time, applied to separation for unfitness and unsuitability. Paragraph 13-5(a)1 provided for the separation for unfitness, which included frequent incidents of a discreditable nature, sexual perversion, drug abuse, shirking, failure to pay just debts, failure to support dependents and homosexual acts. When separation for unfitness was warranted a UD was normally considered appropriate.
Paragraph 3-7 of this regulation provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.
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 view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge to honorable. He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.
2. The Board has noted his contentions that he went AWOL for a while and when he returned, he tried to talk to his superiors about his problem, but they did not seem to understand. However, there is no evidence of record to substantiate the applicant's claim that military authorities were aware of the type or extent of his personal problems and why he went AWOL the first time.
3. The Board also notes his contentions that he just got out of the Army any way he could and unfortunately this was a big mistake that he would like to change. However, while the applicant may now feel that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.
4. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record.
5. The post service character references have been noted, but do not mitigate his misconduct for an upgrade of his UD.
6. 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.
7. 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
_INW__ __WTM___ _CG____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002077086 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021003 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | A70 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | CY2010 | 20100010409
The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army in pay grade E-1 on 29 September 1972 for 4 years. The commander stated the applicant's record of AWOL qualified him for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, also provided that a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090169C070212
The applicant also states that the discharge authority was asked to waive rehabilitation action on the basis of his commander's recommendation that he had served in four units. year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should commence on the date of final action by the ADRB. In an unsworn statement, presented by the applicant during his court-martial, the applicant indicated that he had been a corporal when he was first punished under Article 15 of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150005125
(1) Criterion A - The applicant had been exposed to a traumatic event where both of the following were present: * he experienced, witnessed or was confronted with an event that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self or others * his response involved intense fear, helplessness or horror (2) Criterion B The traumatic event is persistently re-experienced in 1 or more of the following ways: * recurrent and distressing recollections...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004107014C070208
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable or a general discharge. It was not until he surrendered to military authorities that he indicated that he went AWOL because he had to take care of his family as a result of his wife deserting him and his children and there is no evidence in the available records that shows that he sought help from his superiors prior to going AWOL.
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 | 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 | CY2008 | 20080012947
The applicant states that at the time of his discharge he was told that his discharge would/could be upgraded after 5 years. However, there is no evidence in the available record, nor has he submitted any evidence that shows that he was being transferred to Korea as a result of retaliation against him for making a complaint against the Army through a senator, or that he was told his discharge would be upgraded to honorable after 5 years. ___ XXX ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007030
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). He stated that considering the applicant's Vietnam service and the absence of any civilian offenses, he requested the applicant receives the appropriate discharge. Despite a court-martial conviction and two instances of Article 15 for being AWOL, the applicant went AWOL a third time.
ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090005387
Applicant Name: ????? The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: No Change Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: None ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number...