| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John P. Infante | Member | |
| Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was told by his commander that his discharge would be upgraded if he stayed out of trouble for five years. He claims that he received his discharge because he needed to be with his family. In support of his application, he submits a copy of his separation document
(DD Form 214).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 29 April 1971, the applicant entered active duty and was assigned to Fort Ord, California, to attend basic combat training (BCT). The record shows that he never advanced beyond the rank of private/E-1 (PV1) while serving on active duty. His record also documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.
The applicant’s record does reveal an extensive absent without leave (AWOL) related disciplinary history. On 18 February 1972, he was convicted by a special court-martial of two specifications of AWOL. The first from 19 through 23 July 1971, and the second from 26 July 1971 through 10 January 1972.
On 13 April 1972, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of being AWOL from 20 March through 5 April 1972. Further, on 19 January 1973, he was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 11 September through 13 November 1972.
On 26 March 1973, the applicant again departed AWOL from his unit, and he remained away until returning to military control on 26 July 1973. On 27 July 1973, he was notified that a court-martial charge was being preferred against him for this period of AWOL. After consulting with legal counsel and being advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, he voluntarily requested to be discharged for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. The applicant submitted a statement, in which he commented that he was a family man and he would go AWOL every time his wife needed him, and that if he were returned to duty, he would go AWOL again.
On 22 August 1973, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation request and directed that he be issued an UD. On 28 August 1973, the applicant was discharged accordingly. At the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 10 months and 7 days of creditable active military service and he had accrued 533 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue 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 an undesirable 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:
1. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that his unit commander informed him that his discharge would be upgraded in five years if he stayed out of trouble, but it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.
2. The Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits an application requesting a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable. Department of Defense policy prohibits establishing factors that would require an automatic change to a discharge.
3. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge. The Board notes that, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, he admitted guilt to the stipulated offense under the UCMJ.
4. The Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process and that the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of undistinguished service.
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 this 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:
_EP_ __JI__ __RO___
GRANT
________ ________ ___
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003085161 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19730828 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | In lieu of trail by CM |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 713 | 144.7110 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004521C070206
The applicant requests that his records be corrected by upgrading his undesirable discharge to honorable. On 28 June 1972, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge request and directed his reduction to the lowest enlisted grade with the issuance of an undesirable discharge. At the time of the applicant’s separation, the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge, characterized as under other than honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075899C070403
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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Accordingly, on 8 May 1973, the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707418
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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 are preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant was charged with the commission of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707495
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 | CY2008 | 20080002038
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD). He further indicated that he understood what an UD was and that he would accept one to get out of the Army. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091698C070212
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: On 20 June 1969, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. As a result, it is determined that an upgrade to the applicant’s discharge would not be appropriate at this time. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____CLG__ __EL___ __LB__ DENY APPLICATION Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military Records INDEX |CASE ID |AR200.091698 | |SUFFIX | | |RECON |...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072055C070403
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: EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050007874C070206
On 2 January 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge, and directed that he receive an UD and be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. On 7 June 1976, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), after careful consideration of the applicant’s case, determined his discharge was proper and equitable, and it voted to deny his request for an upgrade of his discharge. The Board determined that administrative error in the records of the individual should be corrected.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709944
His second period of AWOL began on 20 November 1971 and ended on 5 January 1972. On 11 June 1979 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade to his discharge.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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080364C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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: Therefore, the Board concludes that an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge is not warranted at this time.