| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | ||
| Mr. Lawrence Foster | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a more favorable discharge that will enable him to obtain veteran's benefits.
APPLICANT STATES: That he needs another chance in life and that at the time, he was given no alternative, either sign the discharge or stay in prison. It has been 30 years since his discharge and he desires to purchase a home using veterans benefits.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in Wilmington, Delaware, on 30 April 1971, for a period of 2 years. He underwent his basic combat training at Fort Dix, New Jersey, and his records show he went absent without leave (AWOL) from 19 July to 20 July 1971. The record is silent as to any punishment imposed. He completed his training and was transferred to Okinawa on 4 November 1971, for duty as a clerk typist.
On 20 March 1972, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for disobeying a lawful order from a superior commissioned officer. His punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for 14 days.
The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's discharge are not present in the available records. However, they do show that he was pending trial by a general court-martial in April 1972 and that on 2 May 1972, the appropriate authority (a lieutenant general) approved his request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial. He directed that the applicant be furnished with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He also directed that the charges against the applicant be dismissed effective the date of his discharge.
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 18 May 1972, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had served 1 year and 17 days of total active service and had 2 days of lost time due to AWOL.
There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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 voluntary 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 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. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was at that time and is still normally considered appropriate.
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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that 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. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.
3. After being afforded the opportunity to assert his innocence before a trial by court-martial, he voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a felony conviction on his records. While he may now believe that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.
4. The applicant’s contentions have been considered by the Board. However, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to his overall record of undistinguished service.
5. 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
__lf_____ __wtm __ ___le____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003084868 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/06/26 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1982/05/18 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/CH10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | GD OF SVC |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 689 | 144.7000/A70.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051267C070420
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The applicant had NJP imposed against him again on 13 July and 27 July 1971 for violations of Article 86, UCMJ and his punishment consisted of extra duty, restriction and a suspended reduction to the pay grade of E-2 for 90 days. However, his records do show that he requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial and the appropriate authority (a major general)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052792C070420
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: His records also show that he went AWOL on three separate occasions from 6 to 18 April 1971, from 6 July to 28 November 1971 and from 2 December 1971 to 4 January 1972.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075521C070403
The Board considered the following evidence: On 3 April 1972, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 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 | CY2003 | 2003084099C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 20 May 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his 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 | 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 | CY2001 | 2001065300C070421
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
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 | CY2001 | 2001058529C070421
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 | CY2002 | 2002080865C070215
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 honorable.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081496C070215
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 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.