Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03092160C070212
Original file (03092160C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied




RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:


         BOARD DATE: 26 FEBRUARY 2004
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003092160


         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun Director
Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Arthur A. Omartian Chairperson
Mr. John T. Meixell Member
Ms. Mae M. Bullock Member

         The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:


1. The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.

2. The applicant states that he was young and foolish and using alcohol at the time, and was bored with the military. He requested discharge just to get out. He is now a family man and wants his daughter to know that he was honorably discharged.

3. The applicant provides a letter of support from the County Manager of Avery County in North Carolina, the Clerk of the Avery County Superior Court, the former sheriff of Avery County, his mother, and a minister, all of whom stated that the applicant is a decent, law-abiding family man, who leads a responsible and productive life. The applicant also provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1. The applicant enlisted in the Army for three years on 13 May 1973, completed training as an infantryman, and in October 1973 was assigned to an infantry company in Germany. On 1 March 1974 he was promoted to pay grade E-4.

2. The applicant's personnel qualification record shows that he was AWOL (absent without leave) from 1 September 1974 through 10 March 1975. The applicant surrendered to military authorities and was returned to military control at Fort Jackson, South Carolina on 11 March 1975.

3. On 13 March 1975 court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant. On 20 March 1975 the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He stated that he was making his request of his own free will and had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever. He stated that he understood that he was guilty of the charge against him which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or a dishonorable discharge. He stated that under no circumstances did he desire further rehabilitation, and that he had no desire to perform further military service. He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the undesirable discharge that he might receive. He made a statement to the effect that he had a lot of reasons to leave the Army, one of which was drugs, which is the reason that he went AWOL. He also stated that he was having trouble at home and needed to be there to help.

4. The applicant's commanding officer recommended that the applicant's request be approved and that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He stated that he had personally interviewed the applicant, and that the applicant stated that his AWOL was caused by drugs and his inability to adjust to the Army. He stated that the applicant indicated that he had no further interest in the Army, but only wanted to return to his family.

5. On 3 April 1975 the separation authority approved the applicant's request and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The applicant was discharged on 2 May 1975. He had 1 year, 8 months, and 10 days of service, and 191 days of lost time.

6. 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 AND CONCLUSIONS :

1. The applicant’s voluntary request for separation for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

2. The applicant's request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received.

3. The applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief, nor is his good post-service conduct, as reflected in the statements of support he submits with his request. Those factors, individually or in sum, are not sufficient to warrant the relief requested. To do so would be a disservice to those Soldiers who served honorably during their period of service. There is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant. His request is not granted.


BOARD VOTE:

________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__AAO __ __ JTM __ __ MMB _____ DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.





                  __Arthur A. Omartian___
                   CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID AR2003092160
SUFFIX
RECON YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED 20040226
TYPE OF DISCHARGE (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 110.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080001164

    Original file (20080001164.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. This lawyer was also informed that the applicant desired to submit a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Chapter 10 (Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial), Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel). In his request for discharge, the applicant also acknowledged that he understood that, if his request for discharge was accepted, he could be...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011859

    Original file (20130011859.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to honorable. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against him or her or of a lesser-included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and he or she must indicate he or she has been briefed and understands the consequences of such a request as well as the discharge he or she might receive. When authorized, it is issued...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058529C070421

    Original file (2001058529C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2001 | 2001058208C070421

    Original file (2001058208C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He did not return from leave and was reported AWOL from 17 September 1974 to 24 January 1975. On 14 December 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded 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:

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008959

    Original file (20080008959.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, upgrade of his discharge to an honorable discharge. The applicant's military service records contain a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) that shows he was discharged on 22 January 1971, under conditions other than honorable, in accordance with the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the Service, with Separation Program Number (SPN) “246,” and issued a DD Form 258A...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059747C070421

    Original file (2001059747C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 23 July 1974, a summary of the applicant’s behavior during confinement was provided to the separation authority.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063263C070421

    Original file (2001063263C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered the following evidence: 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: The Board must conclude that the applicant's commander, using the information available to him at that time, properly considered and accepted the applicant's request for discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021352

    Original file (20120021352.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Having been so advised, he voluntarily submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant acknowledged: a. he was making the request of his own free will and he had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person; b. he had been advised of the implications that...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086756C070212

    Original file (2003086756C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 4 November 1975, the applicant was discharged, in the pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The Board reviewed the applicant's service records, which included two nonjudicial punishments for failure to go to duty and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001297

    Original file (20090001297.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. He goes on to state that his discharge was based on one incident in more than 2 years of a relatively clean record. There is no indication in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.