| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deyon D. Battle | Analyst |
| Mr. Stanley Kelley | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Christopher J. Prosser | Member | ||
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable or a general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was absent without leave (AWOL) for 99 days because his spouse was having multiple seizures and that she needed his care.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 21 March 1967, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1. He successfully completed his training as a lineman. He completed 8 months of total active service and on 21 November 1967, he reenlisted for 4 years.
Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 10 September 1968, for being derelict in the performance of his duties by falling asleep while on duty. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.
On 15 February 1970, NJP was imposed against him for being incapacitated for proper performance of his duties as a result of alcohol. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.
On 10 December 1970, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his appointed place of duty. His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade and a forfeiture of pay.
The applicant had NJP imposed against him on 6 January 1971, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty. His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade and a forfeiture of pay.
On 22 February 1971, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of being AWOL from 14 January until 23 January 1971. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 15 days and a forfeiture of pay.
On 16 March 1971, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his appointed place of duty. His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade, restriction and extra duty.
The applicant was notified that charges were pending against him for being AWOL from 10 May 1971 until 19 August 1971. He acknowledged receipt of the notification on 30 August 1971. After consulting with counsel, he waived his rights and he submitted a request for 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 appropriate authority approved the request for discharge. Accordingly, on 6 October 1971, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had completed 4 years 2 months and 9 days of total active service and he had 127 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement. He was furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
On 9 April 1975, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of 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 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 applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
3. The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions; however, the evidence of record fails to show that the applicant made any attempts to resolve any problems that he may have been having at home through his chain of command. Additionally, he had NJP imposed against him on five separate occasions and he was convicted by a summary court-martial as a result of his numerous acts of misconduct.
4. His request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show he wished to avoid another trial by court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received. Although he may now believe that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.
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:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
___cjp __ __sk ____ __jm____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003088329 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/09/11 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1971/10/06 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, CH 10/ GOOD OF SERVICE |
| DISCHARGE REASON | 689 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 708 | 144.7100/AWOL |
| 2. 713 | 144.7110/FAILURE TO REPAIR |
| 3. 723 | 144.7510/DERELICTION OF DUTY |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017933
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable or a general discharge. In his recommendation, the CO stated that the applicant had gone AWOL on three previous occasions for which he received NJPs and a special court-martial. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090205C070212
He was sentenced to a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD), confinement at hard labor for 1 year, a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and a forfeiture of all pay and allowances. On 17 June 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) dispatched a letter to the applicant informing him that his discharge had been upgraded to a general discharge under the SDRP. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018224
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable or a general discharge. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. The evidence of record shows that he was convicted by a special court-martial and he had NJP imposed against him for striking other Soldiers.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080000779
On 21 April 1971, the applicant's Commanding General (CG) was notified that the investigation revealed that the applicant initially enlisted in the RA on 30 September 1966 and that on 10 June 1969, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to misconduct. Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for misconduct. There is no evidence in the available records nor has the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078156C070215
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: On 18 March 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067635C070402
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: The appropriate authority approved the bar to reenlistment on 5 November 1971.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015256
x The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicants discharge are not present in the available records (loaned to Veterans Administration Center, Togus, Maine on 28 September 1983); however, his records do contain a duly authenticated report of separation (DD Form 214) which shows that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 15 April 1974 under the provisions of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080001723
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. After consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 26 May 1971, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058577C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. He did not complete his airborne training and received orders transferring him to Fort Lewis, Washington with a report date of 25 April 1971.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090682C070212
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. There is no evidence of record that shows 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. 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...