Title: APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to honorable
Author: +

ABCMR Memorandum of                               AC97-07032
Consideration (cont)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was unjustly threatened with 10 years of jail time if he didn't accept an undesirable discharge.  Additionally he claims all his equipment was continually stolen by drug users and that he was sent from unit to unit to stand guard duty.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He entered the Regular Army on 25 February 1970 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 76A (supply clerk) and sent to Vietnam for his first permanent duty assignment.

The evidence of record documents no significant acts of achievement nor valor on the part of the applicant.  The only award or decoration contained in the record is the National Defense Service Medal.

On 10 October 1970, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ for being absent from his place of duty on four different occasions.  On 4 March 1971 the applicant accepted his second NJP for AWOL between 27 February and 3 March 1971.

On 16 July 1971 the applicant was tried by special court martial and found guilty of being absent from his place of duty, and leaving his guard post on two separate occasions. His sentence included: confinement at hard labor for 30 days (suspended); forfeiture of $50 dollars a month for three months; and reduction to private/E-1.

On 26 May 1971 the applicant's unit commander recommended the applicant be separated for unfitness, under the provisions of AR 635-212, and furnished a UD.

The unit commander's recommendation was based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities and included: repeated AWOL; shirking; his need for constant supervision; failure to obey orders; and misbehavior while posted as a sentinel.

On 27 June 1971 the applicant consulted counsel completed and completed his election of rights by waiving his to right to have his case considered by a board of officers and to personally appear before a board of officers.  Additionally, he certified his understanding of the possibility that he could encounter substantial prejudice based on receiving a UD and that there could be a loss of benefits as a veteran under federal and state law.

On 5 July 1971 the appropriate authority approved the separation action and directed the applicant be discharged for unfitness and furnished a UD.  Accordingly, on 25 July 1971 the applicant was discharged after completing 
1 year, 4 months, and 27 days of active military service.

Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, provided in pertinent part the policies, procedures, and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unfit for further military service.  Individuals discharged under this regulation would normally be issued a UD.

On 29 March 1978 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed the applicant's records under the provisions of the Special Discharge Review Program and denied an upgrade of his discharge.

On 8 November 1978 the ADRB denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant's contention that he was coerced into accepting an undesirable discharge was noted by the Board. However, they are not supported by either the evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation applicable at the time.  The reason for and the character of the discharge are commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

2.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

3.  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

                       DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director