| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deyon D. Battle | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | ||
| Ms. Margaret V. Thompson | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That his discharge is inappropriate or unjust because it was due to an incident that happened during the time of his active duty. He states that it reflects upon my 129 days of absence without leave (AWOL). He goes on to state that he had a stateside swap due to the disabilities and sicknesses of his parents; however, he failed to report to his new duty station at the desired time. He states that when he reported to his new duty station he believed that he would receive disciplinary action; however, he was chaptered out of the military with a discharge under other than honorable conditions. He states that he recently had his discharge upgraded to a general discharge and that he is not truly familiar with what benefits he can receive with a general discharge. He states that he knows that it will keep him from being able to receive educational benefits, which he applied for under the Montgomery GI Bill.
He continues by stating that as a result of the time that he spent in the Army, he has grown up and matured and that he has very good character. He states that he believes in his country and he is hoping that his country will give him a second chance because everyone makes mistakes. He states that he now wishes that he had been a better soldier as well as a better person and he asks this Board and the United States Army to please show him mercy. In support of his appeal, he submits 24 letters from friends, family members and members of his community attesting to his good character and post-service conduct.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 27 August 1991, he enlisted in the Army at Fort Benning, Georgia, for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1. He successfully completed his training as a fighting vehicle infantryman/dragon gunner and on 6 January 1992, he was transferred to Fort Irwin, California. On 1 March 1992, he was promoted to the pay grade of
E-2 and to the pay grade of E-3 on 27 August 1992. He was transferred back to Fort Benning, Georgia on 22 July 1993.
The applicant went AWOL on 4 August 1993 and he remained absent until he surrendered to military authorities on 19 September 1993. There is no evidence in the available records that shows that disciplinary action was taken for this period of AWOL. However, he went AWOL again on 24 September 1993 and he remained absent until 10 January 1994.
On 13 January 1994, charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL. He was notified of the pending charges and after consulting with counsel, he submitted a request for discharge, for the good of the service, in lieu
of trial by court-martial. Along with his request for discharge, he submitted a statement in his own behalf indicating that he had tried to get an compassionate reassignment closer to his home because his parents were ill and had medical problems. He stated that his attempt was unsuccessful and he tried again and got a stateside swap to Fort Benning, Georgia. He concluded by stating that he went AWOL because he was still not close enough to home where he would be close enough to commute back and fourth to care for his parents.
The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge on 11 April 1994. Accordingly, on 23 May 1994, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions, 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 2 years, 3 months and 25 days of total active service and he had 155 days of lost time due to AWOL.
On 19 March 2003, the Army Discharge Review Board upgraded the applicant’s discharge from under other than honorable condition to a general 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 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.
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 contentions made by the applicant. However, he was AWOL for 155 days and while the Board understands his actions, it does not condone his going AWOL.
4. On 19 March 2003, the Army Discharge Review Board upgraded his discharge to a general discharge and considering his acts of indiscipline, his discharge now appropriately reflects the overall character of his service, as his service was not completely honorable.
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
__mm ___ __mvt___ __rjw___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003091248 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/09/30 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1994/05/26 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200/CH 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | 689 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 708 | 144.7100 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130005319
The applicant, the mother of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests: * his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable or a general, under honorable conditions discharge * correction of item 14 (Military Education) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show the Airborne Course 2. On 17 March 1994, the board convened and, after reviewing the FSM's records, hearing testimony from witnesses, his chain of command,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076798C070215
On 24 February 1969, he went AWOL and he remained in an AWOL status until he returned to military control at Fort Hood on 6 March 1969. On 30 November 1972, the applicant's chain of command denied his request for separation for the good of the service and indicated that he should be tried by a court-martial authorized to direct a bad conduct discharge. On the same date, the applicant was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007709
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. On 29 August 1983, he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. He contended at that time that he should have received an honorable discharge because he served 48 months without incident and because he had lost a son while in Vietnam.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010708
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge by reason of permanent disability (medical discharge). There is no indication in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011664
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge. He was transferred to Fort Knox, Kentucky, where charges were preferred against him on 30 June 1994 for being AWOL from 9 March 1993 to 27 June 1994 (475 days).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008772
Army Regulation 135-155 also states, in pertinent part, that an active duty officer, who is selected for promotion but removed from the ADL and placed in an active Reserve status prior to promotion, is not eligible for that promotion and that officer will be placed on the RASL and considered for promotion by a Reserve promotion board. With respect to the applicant's consideration for promotion to LTC by a Special Selection Board, there is no evidence in the applicants records and the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085575C070212
On 22 November 1994, the applicant was discharged in absentia under the provisions of chapter 3, Army Regulation 635-200, with a BCD as a result of his conviction by a GCM. Chapter 3, paragraph 3-11, provides that a soldier will be given a BCD pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040001006C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ), dated January 2002, be removed from the Restricted Fiche of her restricted Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). Therefore, they set aside the NJP action; however, since it was already on her Restricted Fiche, they had no authority to remove it from her OMPF. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by removing...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014256
The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions. On 20 June 1994 after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. On 21 June 1994, the appropriate authority approved his request for discharge and directed his discharge under other than honorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003903
d. The evidence of record shows that the two periods of active service (as outlined in paragraphs 2b and 3b, above) are accurately documented (in item 12, blocks d and c, respectively) of the applicants DD Form 214 with an effective date of 19 August 1994. e. The evidence of record shows that the applicants period of net active service this period is accurately documented on his DD Form 214 with an effective date of 16 August 2002. e. The evidence of record shows that the applicants...