| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Gale J. Thomas | Analyst |
| Ms. Kathleen A. Newman | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member | |
| Ms. Linda M. Barker | Member |
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests that his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge and by granting him 4 months of back pay.
2. The applicant states that he did not receive pay for the last four months he was on active duty, that after basic training he was told his finance records had been lost. He received a partial pay of $150.00 but did not receive any additional pay from 1 November 1972, until he departed on 23 February 1973. He feels that he went AWOL (absent without leave) because he had not received a pay check for 4 months.
3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) in support of his request.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant is requesting correction of an error which occurred on 11 June 1973. The application submitted in this case is dated 2 April 2003.
2. Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of justice to do so. In this case, the ABCMR will conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.
3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 August 1972 for a period of 3 years.
4. On 10 May 1973, the applicant’s commander preferred court-martial charges against him for being AWOL from 23 February 1973 to 4 May 1973.
5. On 10 May 1973, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10. In his request he acknowledged that he understood the possible effect of an undesirable discharge on many Army benefits, and that he may encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life as a result of such discharge. The applicant submitted a statement with his request which stated that he hated the Army, that he already had a civilian job and the discharge would not affect him. He further stated that if he was returned to duty he would go AWOL again, and that he understood what an undesirable discharge was and would accept one to get out of the Army.
6. On 25 May 1973, the applicant’s commander recommended approval of his request with an undesirable discharge certificate.
7. On 16 June 1973, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s request, and directed his reduction to the lowest enlisted grade and the issuance of an undesirable discharge certificate.
8. On 11 June 1973, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. His DD Form 214 indicates he had 7 months and 1 day of creditable service, and 70 days of lost time.
9. There are no finance documents in the applicant’s records concerning his pay or any problems he may have had with receiving his pay.
10. 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 AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. 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. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering the facts of the case.
2. There is no evidence of record nor did the applicant provide documentation to substantiate his claim that he did not receive pay for the four months prior to his going AWOL.
3. Records show the applicant should have discovered the error or injustice now under consideration on 11 June 1973; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 10 June 1976. However, the applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to file in this case.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__KAN __ __JTM __ __LMB __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003090003 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20040108 |
| 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. | 128.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070017557
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be changed to an honorable discharge. On 6 August 1973, the applicant was discharged from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service with an undesirable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100415C070208
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 24 March 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued an undesirable discharge. The applicant’s record of service included a bar to reenlistment, five nonjudicial punishments, two special court-martial convictions and 239 days of lost time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050010348C070206
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 31 October 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The applicant’s record of service included one nonjudicial punishment and 83 days of lost time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004951C070205
On 15 November 1973, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. On 27 November 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. Since the applicant’s brief record of service included one nonjudicial punishment and 150 days of lost time, his record of service was not satisfactory...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018264
The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge under honorable conditions. On 6 September 1973, the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel). Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, at the time an Undesirable Discharge Certificate was normally furnished to an individual who...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008247
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 16 October 1973, the applicant was discharged from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service with an undesirable discharge. On 10 September 1974 and 16 April 1986, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicants request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011872
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. Since the applicants record of service included two nonjudicial punishments and 128 days of lost time, his record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. __Margaret Patterson__ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20060011872 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20070315 TYPE OF DISCHARGE UD DATE OF DISCHARGE 19731213 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022709
A Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination) and a Standard Form 93 (Report of Medical History) show he received a medical examination on 23 October 1973. The evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for correction of his record to show he was discharged for medical reasons. The applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge and requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005729
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080005729 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Contrary to the applicant's contentions, the evidence shows he was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness and issued an undesirable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011048
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable or general under honorable conditions discharge. The applicants service record shows he was convicted by a special court-martial for being AWOL for 16 days and he received three Article 15s and had an additional three-month AWOL period. There is no evidence of record which indicates the actions taken in his case were in error or unjust, therefore, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request for an...