| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. G. E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Mr. Frank C. Jones, II | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, he has learned from his mistakes and has been a good citizen and productive member of his community. He states that he was told that his discharge would be automatically upgraded after a period of time. In effect, he contends that the four letters provided show his contributions to his community and that an upgrade is warranted.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant entered active duty on 26 March 1970. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training with award of the military occupational specialty (MOS) 76P (Stock Control and Accounting Specialist). He reenlisted after 8 months on 11 December 1970 and was transferred to Vietnam.
While in Vietnam, from 13 February 1971 through 30 November 1971, the applicant served with four different units. In the first and last units he served in his primary MOS and as a security guard with the middle two units. He was promoted to specialist four in April 1971.
Notwithstanding two nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for four instances of absence from his appointed place of duty, his conduct and efficiency were described as excellent with all four units.
The applicant was reported AWOL (absent without leave) from 1 February 1972 through 10 February 1972. On 25 February 1972, he received a third NJP for the AWOL period and disobeying a direct order.
He was AWOL, again from 7 May 1972 through 6 June 1972 and 7 June 1972 through 10 July 1972. On 11 July 1972 court-martial charges were preferred for those AWOL periods.
On 20 July 1972, after consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 10. He acknowledged he had been advised of and understood his rights under the UCMJ, that he could receive an UOTHC discharge which would deprive him of many or all of his benefits as a veteran, that he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received an UOTHC discharge, and that there is no automatic upgrading or review of a less than honorable discharge.
The discharge authority approved his request and directed that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and be issued an undesirable discharge.
The applicant was discharged, on 5 September 1972, with an undesirable discharge. He had 2 years, 2 months, and 24 days of creditable service with 76 days lost due to AWOL and 71 days of excess leave.
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.
The Manual for Courts-Martial, Table of Maximum Punishments, sets forth the maximum punishments for offenses chargeable under the UCMJ. A punitive discharge is authorized for offenses under Article 86, for periods of AWOL in excess of 30 days.
The applicant submitted a note from his wife saying they have been married for thirty years and that he has been a good husband, a good father to their four children, a hard worker and a good provider. A local minister writes that he has known the applicant for 15 years and can attest that he is a law abiding citizen, his employer's human resource department reports that he has been a dependable and trustworthy employee since June 1984 and the commander of the local American Legion post states that he has known the applicant for 19 years and that he has never been in any trouble.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. His service is appropriately characterized by his overall record.
2. At the time that the applicant requested discharge he signed a statement that there was no automatic review or upgrade consideration for the characterization of his discharge.
3. While the Board has taken note of the applicant's reported good post-service conduct, it is not so meritorious as to outweigh the offenses that led to his discharge.
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.
| CASE ID | AR2002080750 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030529 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | Upgrade post service |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071841C070403
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: APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general 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 | CY2015 | 20150000289
The applicant states that while on active duty he was placed in the stockade for returning late from leave. The applicant may petition this Board to correct this separation date by separate application. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with his service characterized as under conditions other than honorable.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082751C070215
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: On 15 November 1973 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072412C070403
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general or medical discharge. He contended at that time that he simply could not adjust to military life, that he had been a good citizen since his discharge and that he did not want to lose his job or his new home because his employer discovered the type of discharge he received. The ADRB determined that he had been properly discharged and denied his request on 24 July 1974.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008895
On 5 June 1972, the applicant consulted with counsel and requested a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200. The applicants record of service included two NJP's and 335 days of AWOL. Based on this record of indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707418
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 are preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant was charged with the commission of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070695C070402
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01040
They recommended applicant be separated from the Air Force and issued an undesirable discharge. (2) Applicant sought help from the Air Force drug rehabilitation program before he went AWOL, but the attempt failed. The discharge authority approved applicant’s request for discharge for the good of the service and directed an under other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008640
After consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10. a. He further acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request were accepted, he could be discharged under conditions other than honorable and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He stated that at the time they had just had their first child when he came home on leave.