| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Eric S. Moore | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Member | |
| Mr. Ronald J. Weaver | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he misunderstood that his discharge would be upgraded automatically after one year. He provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 December 1973 for a period of 3 years. He completed basic training and was beginning his advanced individual training.
On 4 March 1974, the applicant was reported as absent without leave (AWOL).
On 24 March 1974, civil authorities apprehended the applicant. He was sentenced to 3 years at the Floyd County Jail, in Rome, GA for Interstate Transportation of a Stolen Vehicle.
On 9 July 1975, the applicant was returned to military control.
On 10 July 1975, the applicant completed a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation.
On 11 July 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with AWOL for the period on or about 4 March 1974 to on or about 9 July 1975.
On 16 July 1975, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 24 July 1975, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive an undesirable discharge.
On 6 August 1975, the applicant was discharged with a 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. He had completed 3 months and 15 days of creditable active service and had 491 days of lost time.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to soldiers whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.
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’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. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.
3. The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty of Army personnel. The Board concludes that the type of discharge given was and still is appropriate.
4. 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
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003085034 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030805 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19750806 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, Chapter 10. . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | For the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | Mr. Chun |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059780C070421
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. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge. However, they are not supported by either...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083606C070212
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: That, on 17 February 1972, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. An Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) Case Report, dated 30 March 1982, shows the applicant consulted with legal counsel and, on 27 February 1975, requested separation under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051293C070420
The Board considered the following evidence: 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. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086756C070212
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 | CY2002 | 2002075966C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant was granted leave in the States from 9 November through 8 December 1974. On 19 October 1975, the applicant surrendered to military authorities.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082744C070215
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 18 July 1975, the general court-martial convening authority (a major general) approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial and directed issuance of an undesirable discharge. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010749
The evidence shows the applicant requested discharge in lieu of facing a court-martial. The characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and the evidence shows that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge. _______ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20060010749 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 2007/02/21 TYPE OF DISCHARGE UD DATE OF DISCHARGE 19750428 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR635-200,Chapter 10 DISCHARGE REASON In Lieu of...
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 | CY2001 | 2001058208C070421
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 | CY2001 | 2001064363C070421
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 to an honorable discharge. 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 conduct or dishonorable discharge and they must indicate that they have been briefed and...