| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | ||
| Mr. Allen L. Raub | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that if it is possible, he would like his UD upgraded to a GD.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 2 December 1971, he was inducted into the Army of the United States for
2 years, and that he was assigned to Fort Lewis, Washington, to attend basic combat training. His records reveal no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition, and the highest rank he attained while on active duty was private/E-1.
While still in basic training, the applicant departed his unit absent without leave (AWOL) on 31 January 1972, and he remained away until returning to military control on 28 February 1972. On 29 February 1972, he again departed AWOL, and this time he remained away until 19 March 1972.
On 31 March 1972, the applicant departed his unit AWOL a third time, and he remained away until returning to military control on 30 April 1972. On 3 May 1973, a court-martial charge were preferred against him for this period AWOL.
On 3 May 1973, the applicant consulted legal counsel and was advised of the bases for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum punishment authorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the possible effects of a discharge UD, and of the rights available to him. Subsequent to this counseling, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial. His accompanying statement outlined the financial problems his family has endured since his induction to the Army and the need he felt to be home to support his wife and kids.
The applicant’s request for discharge was approved, and on 15 May 1972, he received an UD after completing a total of just 2 months and 14 days of creditable active military service and accruing 90 days of time lost 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 statue of limitation.
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 evidence of record shows the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge. The Board notes that, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, he admitted guilt to the stipulated offense under the UCMJ.
2. 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, and that the discharge accurately reflects the applicant’s short and undistinguished record of service. Therefore, the Board concludes that an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge is not warranted at this time.
3. 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.
4. 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
__JHL__ __ LE _ __ ALR __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002080364 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/02/20 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19720515 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-299. . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | In Lieu of Trail by CM |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.7000 |
| 2. | 144.9307 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088098C070403
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. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085161C070212
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. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710592
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. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068610C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 9 June 1976, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge after determining that he had been properly discharged. 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 | CY2012 | 20120001252
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions, Undesirable Discharge (UD), be upgraded. Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separation - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059879C070421
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 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. The evidence of record shows the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060017033C071029
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD). On 8 May 1972, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The evidence of record further shows that after being AWOL from his AIT unit for 147 days, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in his receiving a punitive discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010207C080407
Stone | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant states, in effect, that he is requesting an upgrade of his discharge for health reasons. The evidence of record further shows the applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in his receiving a punitive discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710592C070209
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. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: On 20 April 1972 the applicant entered the Regular Army for 3 years at the age of 19. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071810C070403
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 a more favorable discharge. The commanding general approved his request on 3 August 1973 and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.