APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to show that his discharge was characterized as honorable or for physical disability.
APPLICANT STATES: That he spent 2 and 1/2 years in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) and that his behavior was due to the stress of that duty.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military and medical records show:
On 19 January 1967, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA). He completed his required training and was awarded MOS 63A (Automotive Maintenance Helper).
During the period 26 July 1963-24 January 1966, he was assigned to a unit within the U.S. Army Europe.
During the period October 1963-23 March 1965, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 9 occasions, for disorderly conduct; misconduct; drunk and disorderly; disobeying a lawful general regulation; breaking restriction; and, being absent without leave (AWOL). His punishments included forfeitures, extra duties, restrictions, reductions in pay grade
On 28 January 1966, he was honorably separated, with 2 years, 11 months and 15 days of creditable service and assigned to the Army Reserve.
On 19 January 1967, he reenlisted in the RA.
During the period 12 March 1967-8 March 1968, he served in a unit in the RVN.
During the period July 1968-4 April 1969, he accepted NJP on 3 occasions for causing a traffic accident and failing to report it; misconduct; and, being AWOL. His punishments included forfeitures, restrictions, extra duties, reductions in pay grade (suspended).
During the period 28 May 1969-4 July 1970, he served in a unit in the RVN.
On 8 December 1969, he was honorably separated, with 2 years, 10 months and 20 days of creditable service, for the purpose of immediate reenlistment the following day.
On 9 December 1969, he reenlisted in the RA.
During the period 4 June 1970-8 June 1971, he accepted NJP on 2 occasions for being drunk and disorderly and AWOL. His punishments included forfeitures, a reduction in pay grade (suspended), restrictions, restrictions, and a reprimand.
On 14 April 1971, he was convicted by a special court-martial for being AWOL for the period 14 September 1970- 15 February 1971. His sentence included hard labor without confinement, restriction and a reduction to pay grade E-1.
During the period 20 July-3 October 1971, he was AWOL and upon apprehension he was placed in confinement for the period 4-12 October 1971.
On 5 October 1971, a physical examination cleared the applicant for separation.
On 18 October 1971, while assigned to the Personnel Control Facility, Fort Knox, Kentucky, after his commander had preferred court-martial charges against him for AWOL (20 July-3 October 1971), the applicant, with legal counsel, voluntarily submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10. He acknowledged that he was guilty of the charges against him, that he could receive an undesirable discharge, and that he understood the effects of receiving such a discharge. Further, he outlined his indisciplines from his first entry into the Army until present; he indicated that he had no respect for the Army and the people that run it; that there are too many rules and regulations to go by; and, that if made to stay in the Army he would continue to go AWOL.
On 21 October 1971, the appropriate separation authority approved his request and directed his discharge, under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) and that he be reduced to pay grade E-1.
On 29 October 1971, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the above cited regulation. His Report of Separation indicates that he had 1 year, 1 month and 23 days of creditable service and 274 days of lost time.
Title 10, United States Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less that 20 years service and a disability rated at less than 30 percent disabling.
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 the aforementioned requirement.
2. Service medical records do not indicate any medical condition incurred while entitled to receive basic pay which was so severe as to render the applicant medically unfit for retention on active duty. At the time of the separation physical examination, competent medical authority determined that the applicant was then medically fit for retention or appropriate separation. Accordingly, the applicant was separated from active duty for reasons other than physical disability.
3. The applicants voluntary request for separation under AR 635-200, chapter 10, even after appropriate and proper consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.
4. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicants 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
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004344
When separation for unsuitability was warranted, an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individuals entire record. The evidence of record shows the applicants separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability was administratively correct, all requirements of law and regulations were met, the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process, and the applicant was properly...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008118
The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he had completed 1 year, 5 months, and 14 days of total active service. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge using the DD Form 293 submitted in this case. However, he exceeded that board's 15-year statute of limitations and as a result his case is being considered by this Board.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110005550
He states that these Items should be corrected to confirm his service dates and Vietnam service. His record contains a DD Form 4 (Enlistment Record - Armed Forces of the United States), dated 29 July 1967, that shows he enlisted in the RA on 29 July 1967. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. deleting from Item 17c of his DD Form 214 for the period ending 24 July 1970 the entry "29 July 1970" and replacing...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067413C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The following information was taken from his hearing before the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 17 April 1984. On 27 May 1987, docket number AC86-08662, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) denied the applicant's request.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017770
He completed 4 years, 6 months, and 18 days of creditable active service during the period under review with 201 days of time lost. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120017770 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120017770 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021223
The Army Good Conduct Medal is awarded after 1 year of service and he completed almost 4 years. Therefore, he is entitled to award of the Good Conduct Medal (first award) for the period 21 August 1967 through 20 August 1970 and correction of his DD Form 214 to show this award. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. deleting from item 24 of his DD Form 214 for the period ending 22 June 1971 the Vietnam...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1985-02290A
The combined compensable rating for these conditions was 40%. The compensable rating for schizophrenia was reduced to 70%, for a total combined compensable rating of 80%. ___________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on June 22, 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair Mr. Timothy A. Beyland, Member Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Member The following...
The combined compensable rating for these conditions was 40%. The compensable rating for schizophrenia was reduced to 70%, for a total combined compensable rating of 80%. ___________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on June 22, 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair Mr. Timothy A. Beyland, Member Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Member The following...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018002
Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Military Awards), in effect at the time, provided that the Army Good Conduct Medal was awarded to individuals who have completed a qualified period of active duty enlisted service. The evidence of record shows he served in Vietnam from on or about 23 September 1969 to 22 September 1970; therefore, he served a qualifying period for award of the Vietnam Service Medal and is entitled to correction of his DD Form 214 to show this award. As a result, the Board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090205C070212
He was sentenced to a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD), confinement at hard labor for 1 year, a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and a forfeiture of all pay and allowances. On 17 June 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) dispatched a letter to the applicant informing him that his discharge had been upgraded to a general discharge under the SDRP. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.