| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | ||
| Ms. Tracey L. Pinson | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his discharge is unjust and should be upgraded because his company commander promised him that he would be separated for unsatisfactory performance, Chapter 13. He states that he was told by the Sergeant Major and the Colonel that the only way he was going to be discharged would be under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). He further states that he asked to leave the Army due to his heroin usage and that he was not allowed to transfer to another location in the United States. He indicates that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) approximately nine years ago and never received a response. He claims that he now feels ashamed of the discharge he received and the stress and embarrassment it has brought to his family.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 29 November 1974, the applicant entered the Regular Army for 3 years. He successfully competed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11E (Armored Crewman). His record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition, and it confirms that the highest rank he attained while on active duty was private/E-2.
The applicant’s record also shows a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 22 December 1975, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.
The applicant’s discharge packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge processing is not in the record. However, there is a properly constituted separation document (DD Form 214) on file that contains the authority and reason for discharge. This document was authenticated by the applicant with his signature and it confirms that on 14 May 1976, he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial. At the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of only 1 year, 5 months and 16 days of creditable active military service.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue of limitations.
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. The Board notes the applicant’s contentions that his discharge was unjust and that it should be upgraded based upon a promise to him that the reason for his separation would be Chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance. However, they are not supported by the evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.
2. The applicant’s record is void of facts and circumstances concerning events that led to a discharge from the Army. The Board notes that his record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214, which was authenticated by the applicant with his signature, and it presumes government regularity in the discharge process. This separation document confirms that he was discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial.
3. Procedurally, this would have required the applicant to consult with legal counsel after being charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge. In addition, he would have had to voluntarily request separation after admitting guilt to the stipulated offense under the UCMJ. Lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board is 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__ __MHM _ __TLP __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002078885 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/01/28 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19760514 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | In Lieu of Trial By CM |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.0133 |
| 2. | 144.9405 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018246
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. At the time of the applicant's discharge, the issue of an UD. The UD the applicant received was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance, and given his extensive disciplinary history, his record of service clearly did not support the issue of a GD or an HD by the separation authority at the time of his discharge, and it does not support an upgrade at this late date.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000247
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 imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a discharge under other honorable conditions. The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time of his discharge shows he was discharged in accordance with chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065555C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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 trial by court-martial. The Board notes the applicant’s contentions that his discharge was unjust, his recruiter...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710591C070209
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any) APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063300C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR200106330SUFFIXRECONYYYYMMDDDATE BOARDED2002/03/14TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UD)DATE OF DISCHARGE19700403DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200, Chapter 10 .
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079047C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009971
In his voluntary 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 imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a discharge under other honorable conditions. On 6 November 1980, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service in accordance with chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057443C070420
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: It also verifies that the authority for separation was chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 and the reason for discharge was for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001057443SUFFIXRECONYYYYMMDDDATE BOARDED2001/09/13TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE19720811DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710591
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. Although the applicant’s...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011811C071029
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD). On 11 March 1972, the applicant was discharged accordingly. On 5 February 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined the applicant's discharge was proper and equitable and it denied his petition to upgrade his discharge.