APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the reason for discharge is incorrect because he never went AWOL.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his records were sent to the deserter point at Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana by mistake because he was never AWOL. He claims that he went home waiting for orders and he never received any instructions on where to go even when he called.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He entered the Regular Army on 20 August 1968 at age 19 for a 2 year period.
The applicant successfully completed basic training at Fort Knox, Kentucky and advanced individual training, in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman), at Fort Polk, Louisiana.
On 10 December 1968, Fort Polk issued special order number 312 which instructed the applicant to proceed on a 3 week temporary duty (TDY) assignment to Fort Knox, Kentucky, for training as an Army personnel carrier (M-113) driver; in addition, the order contained information which advised the applicant of his follow on assignment to the overseas replacement station in Oakland, California and his ultimate assignment to the United States Army Republic of Vietnam transportation detachment.
On 23 January 1969, upon completion of TDY, Fort Knox issued special order number 23 which amended the applicant's original movement order. This amendment provided specific reporting information which authorized the applicant to take 17 days of leave upon completion of his temporary duty and directed him to report to Oakland, for further assignment to Vietnam, not later than 17 February 1969.
The applicant became AWOL upon his failure to report to the overseas replacement detachment in Oakland, California on
17 February 1969. The record is void of any information supporting the applicant's contention that he was sent home pending orders or any indication of him attempting to clarify his status prior to his return to military control in September 1981.
On 30 September 1981 the applicant's unit commander, at the personnel control facility, Fort Ord, California, notified the applicant that he was being considered for elimination from the service for misconduct, under the provisions of paragraph 14-23b, AR 635-200, and advised him of his rights. The applicant consulted with a legal advisor and elected to: waive consideration of his case before a board of officers; waive personal appearance before a board of officers; and elected to not make a statement on his own behalf. He also acknowledged his understanding that misconduct was the basis for separation and that he could encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life based on his receipt of a general discharge under honorable conditions.
On 24 February 1982 the applicant's unit commander initiated separation action for misconduct based on the applicant's unauthorized absence between 17 February 1969 and
17 September 1981. Two intermediate level commanders concurred with the action, the first on 24 February 1982 and the second on 31 March 1982.
On 7 April 1982 the appropriate authority approved the separation action and directed the applicant be issued a general discharge under honorable conditions and that misconduct-AWOL be cited as the reason for separation. Accordingly, on 20 August 1982 the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 3 months, 12 days of active military service, and accruing 12 years, and 7 months of lost time.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedure for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave.
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 contentions of the applicant have been 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. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
3. 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.
4. 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
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085465C070212
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The evidence of record shows that on 24 February 1972, the applicant consulted with counsel and submitted a request for discharge from the service. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a request for a change in the discharge or its characterization.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711058
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. On 4 June 1973 the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711158
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. On 9 May 1973 a board of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017136
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded. The applicant was again directed to report for transfer to Vietnam on 25 September 1970 and again he went AWOL until he was returned to military control at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri on 4 January 1971. There is no evidence in the available records to show he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013136
The applicant states that his DD Form 214 incorrectly reflects that he was discharged from the 567th Transportation Company as a duty Soldier when in fact he was serving in combat with the 402nd Infantry Company. He also states that he only served with the 567th Transportation Company for 3 months and was then transferred to the 402nd Infantry Company and was in active combat. His DD Form 214 issued at the time of his REFRAD shows his last unit of assignment as the 567th Transportation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009568C071029
The applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge, with his service characterized as under other than honorable conditions, in the rank and pay grade of Private, E-1, on 6 September 1974, under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, Chapter 10, for conduct triable by court-martial. The characterization of service for this type of discharge was normally under other than honorable conditions and the type of discharge normally issued at the time of the applicant's discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086693C070212
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge, as upgraded to general by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), be affirmed by the Board. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that his undesirable discharge was upgraded to a general discharge under the Department of Defense Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP); however, when he applied for benefits, he was informed that his discharge is still considered as under other than honorable conditions. Public Law 95-126 precluded automatic...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070000308
The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), with an effective date of 5 January 1982. The applicant's military service records contain Service copies (2 and 7) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), with an effective date of 5 January 1982. ____Linda D. Simmons_____ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20070000308 SUFFIX RECON YYYYMMDD DATE BOARDED 2007/07/26 TYPE OF DISCHARGE UOTHC DATE OF...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017268
On 5 March 1970, the applicant's immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability) by reason of unfitness. Consistent with the chain of command's recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicantÂ’s discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unfitness and directed he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate and be reduced...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003502C070205
He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 17 November 1965 and served in Vietnam until 10 May 1966, when he was transferred to Fort Gordon, Georgia. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the Army Board for...