Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707032
Original file (9707032.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
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

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707032C070209

    Original file (9707032C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to honorable. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: He entered the Regular Army on 25 February 1970 for a period of 3 years. Accordingly, on 25 July 1971 the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 4 months, and 27 days of active military service.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083515C070212

    Original file (2003083515C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of his request for an upgrade of his Undesirable Discharge to an Honorable Discharge. The applicant failed to return to Vietnam and was reported as being AWOL effective 4 December 1969. On 20 April 1971, the applicant was advised that proceedings to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness were being initiated.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050006954C070206

    Original file (20050006954C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 January 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050006954 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. He further states that his discharge was upgraded under the Department of Defense Special Discharge Review Program (DOD-SDRP) but was not affirmed. Evidence shows that the applicant was properly and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080004963

    Original file (20080004963.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows he served in the RVN for 4 months between June and September 1969. On 24 February 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) voted to upgrade the applicant's discharge to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD), under the provisions of the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) and Presidential Proclamation 4313. Notwithstanding the initial upgrade of his discharge under the SDRP based on his service in the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017780

    Original file (20100017780.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) which was upgraded to a general discharge (GD), under the Department of Defense (DOD) Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP), be upgraded to honorable. A memorandum, dated 21 October 1971, Subject: Elimination Proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, shows that a board of officers was directed to investigate his case to determine if he should be discharged from the service. He applied to the Army...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078647C070215

    Original file (2002078647C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 12 April 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined the applicant’s discharge had been proper and equitable, and it denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel who were found unfit or unsuitable for further military service.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004087C070208

    Original file (20040004087C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 March 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20040004087 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. Evidence shows that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time. Evidence of record further show that he waived consideration of his case by a board...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091818C070212

    Original file (2003091818C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This provision of law allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of justice to do so. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it would not...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004106221C070208

    Original file (2004106221C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was promoted to the pay grade of E-2 on 20 November 1969. On 6 October 1970, the applicant was seen by a psychiatrist who stated that he appeared to have a character disorder of the part for which a discharge from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, would be a most appropriate solution. The Report of Transfer or Discharge (DD Form 214) indicates that the applicant was discharged on 9 July 1973, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004103058C070208

    Original file (2004103058C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel continues that the first review, dated 30 October 1977, the ADRB voted unanimously to upgrade the applicant's discharge to a general discharge under honorable conditions and informed the applicant. The ADRB's second review of the applicant's general discharge was to determine that the discharge should be affirmed. The ADRB's decision to not affirm the applicant's general discharge was consistent with all applicable laws and regulations.