2. The applicant requests In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge.
3. The applicant's military records show that he was born on 1 June 1950. He completed 12 years of formal education. On 6 June 1968, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. His Armed Forces Qualification Test score was 36 (Category III). He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 67M10 (Helicopter Repairer).
4. The applicant served honorably in Vietnam for 19 months and was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious service in connection with military operations, the Air Medal with V Device (2d award) for heroism, the Army Commendation Medal (2nd award), for meritorious service, the Good Conduct Medal, for exemplary behavior, the National Defense Service Medal, for active federal service, the Vietnam Service Medal, for service in Vietnam, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, for valor combat achievement and the Vietnam Campaign Medal. The highest grade he achieved during this enlistment was pay grade E-5.
5. On 23 August 1970, the applicant was honorably discharged after serving 2 years 2 months and 18 days of active honorable service. On 24 August 1970, the applicant reenlisted for 6 years.
6. On 4 January 1972, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 19 May to 6 December 1971. He was sentenced to a reduction to pay grade E-2 and a forfeiture of $150 pay per month for 4 months.
7. On 7 February 1972, the applicant escaped from military confinement. On 12 March 1972, the applicant surrendered to military authorities.
8. On 13 March 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 7 February to 11 March 1972.
9. On 14 March 1972, after consulting with legal counsel the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
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 Administration benefits. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf, but declined to do so. On the same day, the applicant was found physically fit for retention.
10. On 21 March 1972, the appropriate authority approved his request, reduced the applicant to the lowest enlisted grade and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC. On
23 March 1972, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade
E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with a discharge UOTHC. He had completed 1 year, 5 months and 14 days of active service during this enlistment and had 260 days of lost time.
11. 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 UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.
12. The VA, in determining qualifications for benefits administered by that agency, generally holds that an individual who accepts a discharge prior to completion of his term of obligated service may not be eligible for benefits unless or until the VA determines that the early discharge amounted to a complete and unconditional separation from the service.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicants voluntary request for separation under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. The overall quality of the applicants last period of service does not warrant an upgrade of his discharge, but in view of the honorable characterization of his prior term of service, his honorable discharge on 23 August 1970, should be considered a complete and unconditional separation.
3. The circumstances of the applicants honorable discharge on 23 August 1970, have worked an injustice upon him by depriving him of consideration for certain VA benefits for the preceding period of service.
4. In consideration of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and in recognition of his more than 2 years, of exemplary service, it would be unjust to consider his honorable discharge on 23 August 1970, as other than a complete and unconditional separation from the military service.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was eligible for a complete and unconditional separation from the military service at the time of his honorable discharge on 23 August 1970.
2. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.
BOARD VOTE:
GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
CHAIRPERSON
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062624C070421
The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted and entered active duty on 23 February 1968. However, a first endorsement to the applicant’s 15 January 1975 request for discharge for the good of the service, states that the applicant was allegedly AWOL from 2 January 1974 to 6 January 1975, and was being recommended for discharge with issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The Board is cognizant of the applicant’s prior good service and his 30 months of Vietnam service...
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 | CY2010 | 20100011308
The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD). The record also shows the applicant accrued 154 days of time lost during an AWOL period from 4 June 1973 to 4 November 1973. Although an honorable discharge or GD is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608731C070209
On 20 September 1988, the applicant was reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and discharged, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with a discharge UOTHC. On 16 August 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicants request for an upgrade of his discharge. In consideration of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and in recognition of his more than 7 years, of good service, it would be unjust to consider his honorable discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017418
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. On 31 January 1972, he consulted with counsel and he voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. The evidence of record shows he voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000408C070205
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 August 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060000408 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The discharge authority approved the request for discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. A punitive discharge is authorized for offenses under Article 86, for periods of AWOL in excess of 30 days.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130004181
The applicant states he was informed that his discharge would be upgraded to medical under honorable conditions due to his honorable service in Vietnam for 6 months. However, the record includes a DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) for the good of the service-in lieu of trial by court-martial on 22 February 1972 with a discharge UOTHC. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063459C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general or honorable discharge. His voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608664C070209
The Report of Transfer or Discharge, DD Form 214, indicates that the applicant was discharged on 4 April 1983, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a discharge under other than conditions (UOTHC). In consideration of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and in recognition of his more than 7 1/2 years, of good service, it would be unjust to consider his honorable discharge of 8 April...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710636C070209
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: The applicant was single when he enlisted in Seattle, Washington on 4 February 1969 for a period of 3 years. He was convicted by a special court-martial on 20 April 1971 and was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 3 months, reduced to the pay grade of E-1, and a forfeiture of pay. However, the evidence submitted with his application and the evidence of record fail to support his contentions.