Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03092800C070212
Original file (03092800C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied




RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:


         BOARD DATE: 11 MARCH 2004
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003092800


         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. John N. Slone Chairperson
Ms. Mae M. Bullock Member
Mr. Patrick H. McGann, Jr. 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 general.

2. The applicant states that his state of mind was questionable.

3. The applicant provides a copy of a 26 June 2000 statement showing that he progressed very well in a stabilization/transitional program for men recovering from chemical dependence; a certificate showing that he completed that program; a certificate showing award of the degree of Associate in Science in Liberal Technology, dated 10 January 2003; a 19 January 2001 certificate showing completion of a residential recovery program; letters on his behalf from two individuals who attest to the applicant's excellent character; a letter, apparently from either a teacher or a principal thanking the applicant for devoting his time to a college program; and four letters, all apparently from 6th grade students, thanking him for talking to them about college.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1. The applicant's enlistment documents show that he enlisted in the Army for three years on 1 March 1988. He completed infantry and airborne training and in July 1988 was assigned to an infantry company at Fort Wainwright, Alaska.

2. The applicant was awarded the Army Achievement Medal for meritorious achievement for the period 31 July 1988 to 17 August 1988. On 1 April 1989 he was advanced to the rank of Private First Class. In June 1989 he was transferred to an infantry company at Fort Richardson, Alaska.

3. On 8 November 1989 the applicant apparently departed his unit in Alaska on ordinary leave. On 20 November 1989 in the County of Middlesex in Massachusetts, the applicant and his wife executed a separation agreement, which stipulated that they would share legal custody of their three children jointly, and that the children would live with the wife; however, they would have joint custody and control of the children.

4. On 28 November 1989 the applicant was attached to Headquarters Company, United States Army Garrison, Fort Devens, Massachusetts, with duty at the Boston Military Entrance Processing Station, pending an application for a hardship discharge.

5. On 8 December 1989 the applicant went AWOL (absent without leave). He was returned to military control at Fort Dix, New Jersey on 27 February 1990.

6. A Personnel Control Facility Interview Sheet, dated 20 March 1990, shows that in response to the question as to why he went AWOL, the applicant stated, "lack of communication. I was pending a hardship discharge, obtaining different information for [from] different people. Received a phone call that my discharge paper[s] were in the mail. I didn't bother to follow up." On 20 March 1990 court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant.

7. On 23 March 1990 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 understood that he could request discharge for the good of the service because of charges which had been preferred against him which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. He stated that he was making the request of his own free will and had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever. He stated that he acknowledged that he was guilty of the offense charged against him. He stated that under no circumstances did he desire further rehabilitation, for he had no desire to perform further military service. He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the under other than honorable conditions discharge that he might receive. He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

8. On 8 May 1990 the separation authority approved the applicant's request. He was discharged on 17 May 1990.

9. On 30 March 2000, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge.

10. On 18 July 2001 the applicant had a personal appearance before the Army Discharge Review Board, again requesting that his discharge be upgraded. On 23 July 2001 the board denied his request.

11. 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS :

1. The applicant's request for an administrative 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. His 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. The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record.

2. The applicant's good post-service conduct is noted; however, this factor does not warrant the relief requested.

3. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.

BOARD VOTE:

________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__ JNS __ __ MMB __ __ PHM _ 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.





                  _____John N. Slone_____
                  CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID AR2003092800
SUFFIX
RECON YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED 20040311
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 | CY2006 | 20060005602C070205

    Original file (20060005602C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 5 April 1989, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions. He states that he [the grandfather] was away from New Jersey and could not physically help with the children, that the applicant’s wife was living in the street, and that the children were being placed anywhere they could stay.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008460

    Original file (20120008460.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to a general discharge. On 28 December 1988, he was convicted by the District Court of the State of Alaska of assault and sentenced to 60 days of confinement (suspended), a fine (partially suspended), and completion of an awareness program. On 27 March 1989, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for: * one specification of unlawfully striking another Soldier on the face with a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018850

    Original file (20130018850.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 June 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130018850 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. However, the misconduct resulting in his court-martial and bad conduct discharge greatly diminishes his earlier good service.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009689

    Original file (20130009689.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions. However, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 4 May 1992 under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. There is no evidence that shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009525

    Original file (20090009525.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 30 December 1991, the applicant's immediate commander recommended approval of the applicant's separation with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 10 January 1992, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service in accordance with chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 and directed he receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and be reduced the lowest enlisted grade. However, he requested an honorable...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100029888

    Original file (20100029888.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. However, the evidence of record shows these visits to the mental health clinic occurred over a year prior to being charged for AWOL and subsequently discharged. The evidence of record shows the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, was...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070000261C071029

    Original file (20070000261C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Defense counsel objected to the consideration of any of Sergeant W___’s testimony based upon the fact that Sergeant R___ had contacted Sergeant W___ and discussed his testimony with him. In his statement, the applicant stated, in part, that he was requesting discharge because since charges were preferred against him life had been extremely hard for his family and him. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014305

    Original file (20090014305.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9609493C070209

    Original file (9609493C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 5 June 1990 the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued a discharge UOTHC. 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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140004519

    Original file (20140004519.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    She stated that her named daughter had been placed in the custody of another by court order and she acknowledged that if the child was residing with her she would be processed for involuntary separation for fraudulent entry (emphasis added) unless she could, "show that regaining custody of the child was not contrary to the above stated intent; e.g., death, or incapacity of other parent or custodian." The applicant acknowledged that if her child was living with her she would be processed for...