| Mr. | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. | Member | ||
| Mr. | Member |
| Mr. | Karl F. Schneider | Acting Director | |
| Mr. | Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to either a general (GD) or an honorable (HD) discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that after he reenlisted he went home on leave and faced a series of personal problems which caused him to develop a negative attitude toward anything and everything. He further claims that his post service conduct and achievements have been outstanding and he would now like to remove the memory of the mistake he made by not returning to military duty. In support of his request the applicant submits two character references and several letters and certificates of achievement relating to his performance as a Department of Corrections Officer for the State of Connecticut.
COUNSEL CONTENDS: In effect, that the applicant had served honorably between 26 May 1967 and 13 March 1970, to include a 12 month tour of duty in Vietnam; and that the applicant’s mother suffering from terminal cancer was a mitigating factor which diminished his capacity to serve in 1970.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 13 March 1970 the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. At the time of his reenlistment the applicant had completed 2 years,
9 months, and 17 days of honorable service. Additionally, he held military occupational specialty (MOS) 94B (Cook) and the additional skill identifier (ASI) P (Parachutist); he had attained the rank of specialist/E-5; he successfully completed a combat tour in Vietnam; and had been awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal/with 60 device. He also had been tried and found guilty by a special court-martial for a violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ, disobeying a lawful regulation by having in his possession a switchblade knife, for which he was sentenced to forfeit $50.00.
On 2 April 1970 the applicant went AWOL from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, he was dropped from the rolls as a deserter on 2 May 1970, and returned to military control on 6 August 1973.
The evidence of record indicates that on 24 August 1973
a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) was prepared preferring a charge of violation of Article 86 (AWOL) against the applicant for AWOL between 2 April 1970 and 6 August 1973.
The record also contains documented evidence that on
30 August 1973 the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of chapter 10 of AR 635-200. This request was made after the applicant had been advised by counsel of the basis for his contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment, and of the possible effects of a UD. The applicant also attested to the fact that he fully understood he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veteran Affairs and that he may be deprived of veterans benefits under state and federal law.
On 5 October 1973 the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed issuance of a UD. Accordingly, on 1 November 1973 the applicant was discharged after completing only 3 months and 15 days of his current enlistment. He served a total of 3 years, 1 month, and 2 days of active military service and accrued 1141 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.
On 13 January 1977 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade to his discharge.
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 are preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of a UD.
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. The Board, while noting the applicant’s post service accomplishments, determined there was no evidence of record or independent evidence submitted by the applicant which support his contention that his personal problems impaired his ability to serve and determined there was not sufficient mitigation to warrant an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge and after consulting with legal counsel, voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, the applicant admitted guilt to the stipulated offense under the UCMJ.
2. 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.
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 | CY1997 | 9708936C070209
At the time of his reenlistment the applicant had completed 2 years, 9 months, and 17 days of honorable service. 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 are preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707416C070209
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that at the time of his discharge the only offer made to him was to get locked up for 6 months or a UD. On 26 March 1971 the applicant was tried by special court-martial for violation of Article 86 (AWOL between 4 January and 8 February 1971). The record also contains documented evidence that on 21 March 1972 the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of Chapter 10 of AR 635-200.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707416
The record also contains documented evidence that on 21 March 1972 the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of Chapter 10 of AR 635-200. On 21 June 1972 the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed issuance of a UD. Accordingly, on 30 June 1972 the applicant was discharged after completing 2 years, 3 months, and 14 days of active military, and accruing 182 days of time lost due to AWOL.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074499C070403
In addition, the applicant states that while he was still serving in the RVN, the Army implemented a plan to reduce all ASA four year enlistments to three years. The applicant claims that he and four other members of his team were in-processing in at Fort Bragg at the same time on a Monday morning upon their return from Germany. The Board notes the applicant’s contentions that he was misled by his recruiter into accepting a four year instead of a three year enlistment; that he was abused...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080928C070215
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant states, in effect, that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable or at the very least to a general discharge based on the recommendations of the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) at the time. The SJA noted that the applicant had received awards for his service in Vietnam and recommended that the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071659C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He further states that he served two tours in Vietnam, received many awards during his 7 years of service, and was promotable to the pay grade of E-6. He was transferred to Vietnam on 26 August 1970.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084220C070212
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. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. His request was denied and he was told that he had to go back to Fort Hood.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060007452C070205
The applicant requests that his bad conduct discharge (BCD), characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), be upgraded. 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 Correction of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709756C070209
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. The Board considered the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003412C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). The applicant’s request for discharge was approved and on 16 February 1970, he was separated from active duty with an UD. 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.