| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Beverly A. Young | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that there were circumstances involving his absence without leave (AWOL) and he was given "improper information on prior honorable discharge." He claims, in effect, that counsel did not inform him of other options that were available to him. The applicant did not submit any documents in support of his application.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
After having prior service in the U.S. Marine Corps, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 February 1984 for a period of 3 years. He completed advanced individual training and was assigned to Fort Bliss, Texas in duty military occupational specialty 52D (Power Generator Equipment Repairer). He was promoted to specialist four on 1 October 1984.
On 6 November 1984, the applicant received a letter of reprimand for writing checks without sufficient funds in the bank. This letter of reprimand was imposed as an administrative measure and not punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Department of the Army, Headquarters, U.S. Army Air Defense Artillery Center and Fort Bliss, Texas orders dated 14 March 1985 reassigned the applicant to the 21st Adjutant General Replacement Battalion in Germany.
Records show the applicant departed AWOL on 1 July 1985. He surrendered to military authorities in Des Moines, Iowa and was returned to military control on 16 August 1985.
On 21 August 1985, charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 1 July 1985 through 15 August 1985.
On 22 August 1985, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offense charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and that he might be ineligible for many or all Army benefits administered by the Veterans Affairs if an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate was issued. The applicant did not submit a statement in his own behalf.
There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute 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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
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.
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.
3. There is no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights or that his request for a chapter 10 discharge was made under coercion or duress.
4. 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 Affairs benefits. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.
5. Based on the foregoing, the Board has determined that there is no apparent error, injustice or inequity on which to base recharacterization of the applicant's discharge.
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
FNE_____ MHM_____ KAH_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003088607 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030916 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19850923 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, chapter 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | For the Good of the Service – In the Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | Mr. Chun |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072400C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. There is no evidence in the available records to show 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. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069578C070402
The Board also took into consideration the applicant’s age at the time of his enlistment. The Board took into consideration the applicant's entire record of service and was convinced that both the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were appropriate considering the facts surrounding his discharge. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002069578SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20020813TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068507C070402
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. On 3 January 1985, the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010381C070208
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. While the applicant offers evidence of his hospitalization and treatment for schizophrenia, subsequent to his separation, he provides no evidence that the condition was the basis of his period of AWOL in 1986 or that he was unable to comprehend his decision to voluntarily request discharge rather than face a court-martial. The significant lapse of time between the applicant’s separation and his diagnosis of schizophrenia further supports...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086696C070212
He recommended approval of his request with a discharge under other than honorable conditions. However, taking into consideration that the applicant's commanders at the personnel control facility were not aware of the applicant's record of service, coupled with the applicant's stated desire to leave the Army because of personal difficulties, his discharge under other than honorable conditions was perceptible. The applicant's DD Form 214 should be corrected to show award of the Army Good...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040002225C070208
The applicant requests that his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty) for the period 4 June 1984 to 12 June 1985 be corrected by changing his reentry code (RE code) from RE-3, 3B to one that will allow him to enter the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) program. The ADRB, after considering his case on 23 June 1987, denied his request. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088472C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected by upgrading 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 | 2002081200C070215
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 | CY2001 | 2001065511C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board notes that the applicant’s current contention that he was given an extension of leave over the phone but was charged with being AWOL anyway is different from his contention at the time that he tried to contact his unit through the services of his recruiter but was unable to do so. While the Board sympathizes with the applicant’s reasons for wanting a leave...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061143C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. However, his records do contain a duly constituted report of separation (DD Form 214) which shows that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 16 June 1971, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. At the time of his discharge, the applicant received a letter explaining the procedures for applying...