| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member | ||
| Mr. Antonio Uribe | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, during his service, he was experiencing a tremendous change both racially and morally. He states that he was young and found it difficult to adjust to military life. He states that he did not volunteer for the Army, but he tried to serve honorably.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 21 August 1969, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States. He successfully competed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 76Y (Unit Organization Supply Specialist). His record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition, and it confirms that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private/E-2.
The applicant’s record reveals an extensive disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of non-judicial punishment (NJP) on the following three occasions for the offenses indicated: 15 September 1969, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty; 20 December 1969, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty; and 2 January 1970, for breaking restriction. In addition, he was convicted by a special court-martial on 17 February 1971, of six specifications of being absent without leave (AWOL).
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 the authority for his separation was chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, and the reason for his discharge was for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial. The DD Form 214 also shows that on 3 August 1971, he received an UD after completing a total of
1 year and 1 day of creditable active military service, and having accrued 348 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute 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. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.
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 should be upgraded based upon the racial and moral climate of the country during his term of enlistment, and because his youth impaired his ability to adjust to military service. However, the Board finds insufficient evidence to show that any racial factors existed or that his youth and immaturity contributed to his misconduct.
2. The applicant’s record is void of facts and circumstances concerning events that led to his discharge from the Army. The Board notes that his record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214, which he authenticated with his signature, and it presumes government regularity in the discharge process.
3. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. In connection with such a discharge, he was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge. Procedurally, he was required to consult with defense counsel, and to voluntarily request separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, he admitted guilt to the stipulated offenses under the UCMJ. In the absence of information to the contrary, the Board was 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
__SAC__ __RKS _ __ AU __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002079047 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/02/11 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19710803 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR625-200 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | In Lieu of Trial by CM |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.0133 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056121C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a more favorable discharge. In April 1966 he went absent without leave (AWOL) for 2 days and nonjudicial punishment was again imposed against him, which resulted in his being reduced to the pay grade of E-2.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009893
On 22 January 1971, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 28 January 1971. Evidence of record shows he was awarded a clemency discharge in 1975 pursuant to PP 4313 of 16 September 1974.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110012620
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. However, on 11 June 1973, he consulted with counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120000188
Accordingly, he was discharged on 29 May 1969. On 8 May 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), after careful consideration of his military records and all other available evidence, determined he was properly discharged and denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. Records show that he was between 17 and 20 years of age at the time of his service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080025C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: On 29 January 1968, the special court-martial convening authority vacated the suspended portion of his sentence to confinement at hard labor for 4 months and directed his confinement.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065067C070421
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: He continuously served on active duty until 8 January 1971, at which time he was undesirably discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by court-martial. On 17 November 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge after determining that it had been proper and equitable.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110005306
The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Since the incident the applicant had completely refused to do any duties he was assigned or ordered to do and the applicant stated he just wanted out of the military. On 21 October 1970, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003422
The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged from the Army on 12 June 1969 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with service characterized as under conditions other than honorable and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. There is no evidence of record and the applicant did not provide any evidence that shows he was advised his characterization of service would be automatically upgraded...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016280
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 1 March 1973, the applicant submitted a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States) to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) requesting an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, at the time the applicant was discharged an undesirable discharge was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062803C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 28 November 1969, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed an undesirable discharge. On 26 August 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.