| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member | |
| Mr. Harry B. Oberg | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his "under conditions other than honorable" discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he has been involved with the Melcher-Dallas, Iowa American Legion for 10 years now and served as the commander for a period of 4 years. He states that he is currently serving in the position of "post adjutant" but his eligibility is now being questioned. The applicant states that he would like to continue to work with, and serve his country and community as a member of the American Legion and as such, "respectfully" requests that his discharge be upgraded. Other than his self-authored statement, he submits no evidence in support of his request.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He entered active duty as an enlisted soldier on 30 March 1970, at the age of 17, with 9 years of formal education.
He successfully completed basic training and received excellent conduct and efficiency ratings.
In July 1970 he was assigned to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland for the purposed of attending advanced individual training.
However, on 10 July 1970 he commenced a series of absent without leave (AWOL) periods, which ultimately resulted in his being dropped from the rolls of the Army on two separate occasions.
In June 1971, when charges were preferred against the applicant for his more than 200 days of lost time, the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
His request acknowledged he understood the nature and consequences of the under other than honorable conditions discharge which he might receive. He indicated he understood he could be denied some or all veterans' benefits as a result of his discharge and that he may be deprived of rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.
In a statement submitted on his own behalf he noted that he wanted to be discharged because he could not "live in a place where everyone is bossing everyone else around" and that he did not "like to be tied down in a certain place [he] want[ed] to be free."
The separation authority, a major general, approved the applicant's request and directed that the applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions and issued an undesirable discharge certificate. On 17 June 1971 the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He had 6 months and 29 days creditable service and more than 200 days lost time.
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.
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 that requirement.
2. The Board notes that in spite of the applicant’s age and education level at the time of his enlistment in the Army, he successfully completed basic training and received excellent conduct and efficiency ratings. Such actions indicate that the applicant was capable of honorable service.
3. The applicant’s discharge was the result of his own request after more than 200 days of being absent without leave. The actions of the Army in this case were proper, and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.
4. While the Board does note the applicant’s contention that since his discharge he has been actively involved in the American Legion and wishes to remain active in that organization, these issues, either in part or in whole, are insufficient to justify upgrading the applicant’s discharge.
5. There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, that his discharge was in error or unjust. He has submitted no evidence which would serve as a basis to upgrade his discharge as a matter of equity.
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
__AAO __ __TL ___ __HBO __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003089077 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 200360828 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080750C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS : That his discharge be upgraded. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088382C070403
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE : On 10 March 1972, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UD. There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge under that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070013232
The applicant's military service record shows that he was inducted into the Army of the United States on 20 February 1963. 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, during his last period of enlistment during the period from 25 January 1970 to 17 February 1971, evidence shows the applicant had 185 days of time lost.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074704C070403
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. It required the establishment of uniform published standards which did not provide for automatically granting or denying a discharge upgrade for any case or class of cases. The Board reviewed the applicant's record of service which included five nonjudicial punishments, a summary court-martial, a special court-martial, and 387...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084692C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. While the applicant’s EER’s show that he performed his duties to a high degree of proficiency and professionalism, he was not recommended for any award. A commander is in the best position to evaluate whether a soldier is worthy of an award, since the commander has an overview of the performance and accomplishments of everyone in his or her command.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066923C070402
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. After review by a board of officers at Fort Knox, Kentucky, with representation by counsel on 25 August 1971, the discharge authority directed that the applicant be discharged with an undesirable discharge,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078322C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : He states that, at the time of the discharge, he was young and having family problems. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070008477C080213
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division General Orders Number 2578, dated 21 March 1969, awarded the applicant the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious service for the period 1 July 1968 to 28 February 1969. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100618C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge be upgraded. 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. As a result, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057542C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The Board notes that the applicant was 20 years of age at the time of his first AWOL.