| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Rosa M. Chandler | Analyst |
| Ms. Kathleen A. Newman | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was very immature. He realizes that he made a mistake and he respects the Army more than ever. In support of his request, he submits four statements that were written by individuals that have known him for many years. All four statements refer to the applicant as being a kind, caring, giving person. He freely gives of himself and helps others by doing volunteer work in his community.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
That on 24 September 1974, both parents signed a declaration of parental consent for him to enlist in the military. On 4 October 1974, at age 17, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. On the same date he was assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, for completion of basic combat training (BCT).
The applicant left his unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status from
18 October-26 November 1974. On 26 November 1974, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was imposed against the applicant for this period of AWOL. His punishment included the forfeiture of $77 pay per month for 1 month and 7 days of extra duty and restriction.
On 6 December 1974, the applicant was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas, for completion of advanced individual training (AIT). He completed the training requirements and he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 64C (Motor Transport Operator).
On 7 February 1975, the applicant left Fort Hood in a casual leave status. He went into an AWOL status from 11 February-4 March 1975, when he failed to return to Fort Hood for permanent duty. On 11 March 1975, NJP was imposed against the applicant for this period of AWOL. His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1, the forfeiture of $80 pay per month for 1 month and 14 days of extra duty (suspended for 6 months).
The applicant left his unit in an AWOL status from 6 April-23 June 1975. On
26 June 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against him for this period of AWOL. On the same date, he consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. He was advised that separation under chapter 10 could lead to a UD. He authenticated a statement with his signature in which he acknowledged that he understood the ramifications of receiving a UD. He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 27 June 1975, both a mental status evaluation and a medical examination determined the applicant was qualified for separation.
On 8 July 1975, the applicant’s unit commander recommended that his request for discharge be approved. The applicant's commander stated that the applicant had become disenchanted with the military and further retention would not be in the interest of the Army. On 10 July 1975, the separation authority approved separation with a UD.
The applicant’s DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, shows that, on 15 July 1975, he was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service with a UD. He had completed 7 months and 25 days of active military service and he had 48 days of recorded lost time.
There is no evidence in the available records to indicate that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 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 a UD.
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. 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.
2. The applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid trial by court-martial and there is no evidence of any coercion during the discharge process. He has provided no information that would indicate the contrary.
3. The Board has taken into consideration the applicant’s contention that he was immature at the time that he enlisted. However, he met entrance qualification standards, to include age with a waiver. The Board found no evidence that he was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation.
4. The Board considered the applicant’s entire record of service and was convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both appropriate.
5. The applicant’s post service achievements are commendable, but they do not overcome the seriousness of the offense for which he was discharged.
6. 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
__kan___ __le____ __jtm___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003083904 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20031002 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19750715 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, Chap 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A60.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.6000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078222C070215
It shows his assignments and clearly indicates that he was assigned to perform duties in MOS 11D. The commander cited the bases for his recommendation were the applicant's AWOL offenses; his punishment record; and the fact that he was very unstable and he had many family problems. On 18 June 1985, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100433C070208
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. 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. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against them or of a lesser included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001726
The applicant's request for discharge states he was not subjected to coercion with respect to his request for discharge. The applicant's DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he entered active duty this period on 30 April 1971 and he was discharged on 30 July 1975 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090021C070212
The Board considered the following evidence: APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the undesirable discharge (UD) her husband, a former service member (FSM), received be upgraded to an honorable discharge. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The FSM’s military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002639
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, stated a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076798C070215
On 24 February 1969, he went AWOL and he remained in an AWOL status until he returned to military control at Fort Hood on 6 March 1969. On 30 November 1972, the applicant's chain of command denied his request for separation for the good of the service and indicated that he should be tried by a court-martial authorized to direct a bad conduct discharge. On the same date, the applicant was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088580C070403
The applicant is requesting correction of an error or injustice which occurred on 30 September 1976, the date his undesirable discharge (UD) was upgraded to a GD by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB). At the time of the applicant's separation, a UD or a GD was appropriate. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606810C070209
He further stated that he believed a discharge would be best for himself, his family and the Army On 26 September 1975 the appropriate authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The applicant has provided no evidence and the records contain none that support his request to upgrade his discharge. Finally, he had the option of resubmitting another compassionate reassignment request, which he chose to disregard,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089597C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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. A condition of submitting such a request is that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007468
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 July 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100007468 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-years statute of limitation. However, his record contains a properly-constituted DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 30 September 1975 under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 in lieu of a court-martial with an under other...