| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance . | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member | ||
| Mr. Linda D. Simmons | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he has several issues that he could gladly discuss; however, he provides no further explanation of these issues.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 19 February 1974, he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty for three years. The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition, and it shows that highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private/E-2 (PV2).
On 16 September 1974, while still in training, the applicant departed from his unit absent without leave (AWOL). On 15 October 1974, he was dropped from the rolls of his organization. He remained away until returning to military control on 10 December 1974.
The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge processing are not in the record. However, there is a separation document (DD Form 214) on file that confirms that on 23 December 1974, he received an UD discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial. The separation document also verifies that at the time of his discharge he had accrued 98 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.
There is no indication that the applicant requested an upgrade of his discharge from the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15 year stature 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 applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge processing. However, it does confirm that he was charged with an offense that was punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with a punitive discharge. It also contains a properly constituted
DD Form 214, which identifies the reason and characterization of his discharge. Therefore, the Board presumes Government regularity in the discharge process.
2. In the absence of information to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, the Board finds that the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects the overall quality of his relatively short and undistinguished record of service. Thus, the Board finds no evidentiary basis upon which to support granting the requested relief.
3. 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.
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
_ _JS__ __LDS___ __RKS___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003088544 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003./09/DD |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1974/12/23 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | In lieu of court-martial |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | CY2004 | 20040010251C070208
There is no indication that the applicant requested an upgrade of his discharge from the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) within its 15-year statute of limitations. He was cleared for separation by competent medical authority, and there is no indication he suffered from any disabling physical or mental condition at the time of his discharge. The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011320C070208
The applicant’s record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 25 April 1973. The applicant’s record does include a separation document (DD Form 214) that shows on 18 April 1975, he was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, and that he received an UD. There is no indication that the applicant requested an upgrade of his discharge from the Army Discharge Review...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040007582C070208
He had completed 3 years, 8 months and 13 days of active military service and he had no recorded lost time. There is no evidence that the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. At the time of the applicant's separation, a UD was appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051876C070420
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he had served on active duty for 24 months when he made a foolish mistake by accepting an administrative discharge. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: It also shows that at the time of his separation he had completed a total of 2 years and 29 days of active military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060735C070421
The applicant’s military records show that he served on active duty in the USMC for 4 years, from 6 June 1966 to 5 June 1970, at which time he was honorably separated at the expiration of his enlistment. Although not entered in his DA Form 20, the applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains a copy of General Order Number 681, dated 30 April 1972, which confirms that at the completion of his tour in the RVN he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003959C070205
Stone | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. There is no evidence of record, and the applicant has failed to provide evidence showing that he was improperly advised, or denied the training he enlisted for. The applicant’s separation document confirms he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070122C070402
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 26 October 1976, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062808C070421
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050007954C070206
The applicant’s record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 4 September 1973. The applicant’s record does include a separation document (DD Form 214) that shows that on 23 May 1975, he was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, and that he received an UD. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or...