| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Beverly A. Young | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member | |
| Mr. Lawrence Foster | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That there is no error. He claims that he was just too young and wanted out of the service. The applicant did not submit any documents in support of his application.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 November 1971 for a period of three years. He was assigned to Fort Jackson, South Carolina, for basic combat training (BCT). While in BCT, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 11 December 1971 to 4 January 1972.
Upon completion of BCT, the applicant was reassigned to the U.S. Army Training Center at Fort Ord, California. He received nonjudicial punishment on 20 March 1972, for wrongfully appropriating a tape recorder of a value of $40.00.
The applicant was assigned to the 172nd Infantry Brigade in Alaska on 31 May 1972. He received nonjudicial punishment on 14 August 1972 for failing to go to his appointed place of duty and for disobeying a lawful order from his superior squad leader.
Charges were preferred against the applicant on 13 November 1972 for being AWOL from 5 September 1972 to 1 October 1972 and from 4 October 1972 to 12 November 1972.
On 13 November 1972, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offenses charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration if an undesirable discharge were issued. The applicant did not submit statements in his own behalf.
The applicant underwent a separation medical examination and was found fit for separation with a physical profile of 111111.
On 17 November 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
The applicant was discharged on 24 November 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had 9 months of creditable service with 90 days of lost time due to AWOL.
There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board 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.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.
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 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.
2. There is no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights or that his request for a chapter 10 discharge was made under coercion or duress.
3. The applicant's contention that he was young at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.
4. Records show the applicant received three nonjudicial punishments and was AWOL on three separate occasions for a total of 90 days.
5. 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. Therefore, the characterization of the applicant’s current discharge is appropriate considering all the facts of the case. There also is no apparent error, injustice, inequity, or change in policy or standards on which to base recharacterization of his discharge to honorable.
6. 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.
7. 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
JNS_____ REB____ LF______ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002081496 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030225 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19721124 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, chapter 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | For the Good of the Service |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | Mr. Chun |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070662C070402
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.
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.
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 | CY2005 | 20050002103C070206
On 26 February 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued an undesirable discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 22 March 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. The applicant’s record of service included five nonjudicial punishments and 171 days of lost time.
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 | CY2006 | 20060004327C070205
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. He also states that his discharge should have been upgraded 6 months after he was discharged. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062301C070421
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 2 February 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. Evidence of record also shows the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 16 February 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for fraudulent entry.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001066187C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The ADRB denied his request on 7 November 1974. Chapter 10 of the 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 charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
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 | CY2005 | 20050004752C070206
The applicant requests, in effect, that all of the blocks on his DD Form 214 be completed and that he be provided an explanation of why he received a discharge under other than honorable conditions. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge on 11 January 1974 and that board found that his discharge was both proper and equitable and denied his request on 6 February 1974. That regulation also provided that information blocks contained on the...