| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Mark D. Manning | Member | |
| Mr. Robert L. Duecaster | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he had marital problems, which his chain of command was aware of, but did nothing to help him. He states that since his discharge he has overcome his alcohol and drug problems and is now a contributing member of society. In support of his request he submits eight letters of support.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He entered active duty on 5 October 1983. At the time of his enlistment he was 19 years old, had completed 12 years of formal education, and had one daughter, born in February 1982. He was not married at the time of his enlistment.
The applicant’s enlistment incentives included a $5000.00 enlistment bonus and training as an infantryman. His enlistment was executed in Atlanta, Georgia.
The applicant successfully completed basic and advanced individual training. In March 1984, at the age of 20, the applicant married the mother of his daughter and in May 1984 he was promoted to pay grade E-3 after receiving a waiver for both time in service and time in grade requirements. He was assigned to Fort Stewart, Georgia at the time.
In June 1984 he received a certificate of achievement for obtaining a perfect score at all stations during common task testing. The certificate noted “few soldiers have reached this level of proficiency…and…placed him ahead of his peers.”
On 1 December 1984 his son was born.
On 10 December 1984 the applicant departed AWOL (absent without leave). He returned to military control on 12 December and departed AWOL again on
17 December. He returned to military control on 20 December 1984.
On 9 April 1985 the applicant departed AWOL for a third time. He was dropped from the rolls of the Army on 8 May 1985 and on 3 June 1985 surrendered to military authorities at Fort Stewart.
On 9 July 1985, after charges were preferred, the applicant consulted with 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. His request acknowledged he understood the nature and consequences of the undesirable discharge, which he might receive. He indicated he understood he could be denied some or all veterans' benefits as a result of his discharge and that he may be deprived of rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law. He did not submit any statements on his own behalf and waived his attendant rights.
His voluntary request for discharge was approved and on 25 July 1985 he was discharged under other than honorable conditions. He had 1 year, 7 months, and 23 days of creditable service and more than 60 days of lost time.
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.
In 1988 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s petition to upgrade his discharge.
The statements submitted by the applicant in support of his request were either undated or authored in 2002. Three of the letters were from his sisters; one was from his niece, one from his daughter and one from his son. The remaining two were from friends; one who had gotten to know the applicant well over the past two years and one that has known him for about a year. The letters noted how the applicant had recently turned his life, overcome his drug and alcohol problems during the past two years, found full time employment, and was positively influencing their lives.
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 Board notes that the applicant successfully completed training, was promoted to pay grade E-3 early, and was commended for his proficiency in his military skills, in spite of having a daughter and subsequently marrying the mother of his child. Such evidence clearly shows the applicant was capable of honorable and exceptional service.
2. The Board notes that the applicant’s contention that his chain of command was aware of his marital problems and would not assist him, is not supported by any evidence in available records, or submitted by the applicant. The evidence of record indicates that the applicant had two brief periods of AWOL shortly after the birth of his son in December 1984, but then served without incident until April 1985 when he departed AWOL again. He has presented no evidence that he sought the assistance of his chain of command in resolving his problems between December 1984 and April 1985.
3. The Board also notes that when given the opportunity to make a statement in his own behalf at the time of his discharge, he chose not to do so.
4. While the applicant’s ability to overcome his alcohol and drug problems within the past 2 years, and his continued contributions to the lives of his family and friends, is certainly commendable, it is not so outstanding or meritorious as to warrant upgrading of his discharge as a matter of equity.
5. 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 that requirement.
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
__SAC __ __MDM _ __RLD __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003084866 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030508 |
| 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. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014755
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge and that the date of birth (DOB) on his DD Form 214 be corrected. Accordingly, he was discharged with a general, under honorable conditions discharge on 21 March 1991, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct commission of a serious offense.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001289
These thoughts and events kept him leaving the Army AWOL. Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally issued to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. c. A general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088023C070403
The applicant requests, in effect, that the records of her deceased spouse, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show he elected to participate in the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) for spouse and children coverage, full base amount, option C and applied for retired pay. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. a. showing that the FSM applied for retired pay by completing a DD Form 2656 on 1 July 1998...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073966C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 25 June 1985, the applicant's commander recommended that he be discharged UOTHC in accordance with the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. However, at the time of the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service, he stated to his commander that he went AWOL to reconcile with his wife and of his own admission, he desired and requested to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060006654C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. Since the applicant’s record of service included two nonjudicial punishments and 76 days of lost time, his record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012286
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests that his general, under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. His duty performance, off-duty performance, and short term of service does not warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010381C070208
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. While the applicant offers evidence of his hospitalization and treatment for schizophrenia, subsequent to his separation, he provides no evidence that the condition was the basis of his period of AWOL in 1986 or that he was unable to comprehend his decision to voluntarily request discharge rather than face a court-martial. The significant lapse of time between the applicant’s separation and his diagnosis of schizophrenia further supports...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069578C070402
The Board also took into consideration the applicant’s age at the time of his enlistment. The Board took into consideration the applicant's entire record of service and was convinced that both the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were appropriate considering the facts surrounding his discharge. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002069578SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20020813TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016450
The service should be characterized as general under honorable conditions because he had served continuously with honor from his original enlistment on 13 November 1984 until he went absent without leave (AWOL) on 14 November 1991. c. Considering the "memoranda of input" that explained what a good Soldier and trainer he was and his overall record of service, characterizing his service as under other than honorable conditions was unjustified and inequitable. The discharge authority approved...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001517
His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 3, as a result of court-martial with a bad conduct character of service. The evidence of record shows the applicant was twice convicted by special courts-martial and both convictions involved periods of AWOL service. The evidence of record shows he was given a bad conduct discharge pursuant to an...