| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Stanley Kelley | Member | |
| Mr. Harry B. Oberg | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the character of his "service be change[d] to general."
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that a young German girl came into the barracks with him and was raped. He states that he had nothing to do with the incident and the woman could not identify him in a "line up." The applicant states that in spite of having nothing to do with the incident his commander said he was going to "discharge us." The applicant notes that he was not aware that the character of his discharge would impact on his service benefits. He states that he was young and dumb and after 20 years he has "paid the price" and now wishes to have his benefits. The applicant submits no evidence in support of his request.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He entered active duty on 30 June 1972, less than two months shy of turning 20. The applicant successfully completed training and was assigned to Europe in December 1972 where he performed duties in the supply field. By April 1973 he had been promoted to pay grade E-3.
Documents associated with the applicant's administrative separation were not included in records available to the Board. However, an undated document, which was in the applicant's file, indicated that his defense counsel requested "postponement of the initial session of court" to enable the applicant to request a "Discharge for the Good of the Service, under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR [Army Regulation] 635-200."
The applicant's Department of Defense Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) indicates the applicant was discharged "under other than honorable conditions" on 1 October 1974 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10. He was issued an undesirable discharge certificate. The applicant was 22 years old at the time of his discharge.
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, voluntarily 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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board concludes that the applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.
2. The Board notes that the applicant was assigned defense counsel who requested a postponement of court action to permit the applicant to request a discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. The fact that such an action took place supports a conclusion that the applicant likely received counsel regarding the consequences of requesting an administrative separation. The Board also notes that a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial is a voluntary action the applicant would have had to concur with. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes regularity.
3. The applicant has provided no evidence that his post service character has been so outstanding or meritorious as to warrant upgrade of his discharge as a matter of equity.
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 that 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
__RVO _ __SK ___ __HBO __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002078067 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021219 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081496C070215
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. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The Board determined that the applicant’s overall military service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel sufficient to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074310C070403
He failed to report for his movement date and was declared AWOL. On 1 May 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board determined that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable, and it denied his request for an upgrade to his discharge. 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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088459C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to either a general or honorable discharge. On 18 October 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058529C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 29 January 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed issuance of an undesirable discharge. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110025182
On 8 December 1972, the applicant was discharged. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate at the time the applicant was discharged. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069868C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must indicate that they have been briefed and understand the consequences of such a request as well as the discharge they might receive.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062418C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 12 March 1974, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge to honorable. 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 | CY2002 | 2002076225C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 19 May 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board determined the applicant’s discharge had been proper and equitable, and it denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056915C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. The applicant's petition to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), to have his discharge upgraded, was denied in 1976, 1977 and after a personal appearance board in 1978.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070018841
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 8 November 1972, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.