| Mr. | Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. | Raymond V. O’Connor Jr. | Member | |
| Mr. | James M. Alward | Member |
| Mr. | Loren G. Harrell | Director | |
| Mr. | Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he fought hard for his country; that if his records are checked there will be more good service than bad; and that the injustice was gross.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 4 January 1967 the applicant entered the Regular Army for 3 years at the age of 17. He successfully competed basic training at Fort Polk, Louisiana, advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri and the basic airborne course at Fort Benning, Georgia. Upon completion of training he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 12A (Pioneer) with the additional skill identifier of P (Parachutist) and assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina for his first permanent duty station.
The applicant’s record indicates the highest rank he held on active duty was specialist/E-4 which he attained on 24 October 1968. Additionally, it documents that he successfully completed a combat tour of duty in Vietnam for which he earned the following awards: the Vietnam Service Medal, the Vietnam Campaign Medal/with 60 device; the Army Commendation Medal; the Bronze Star Medal; and the Combat Infantryman Badge. However, the record also includes a history of disciplinary infractions as evidenced by acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, on two different occasions.
On 25 January 1969 the applicant accepted an NJP for being in an off-limits area on 22 January 1969. His punishment for this offense included forfeiture of $46.00 and reduction to the rank of private first class/E-3.
On 24 October 1969 the applicant accepted an NJP for being AWOL from
27 August 1969 to 13 October 1969. The resultant punishment for this offense was reduction to the rank of private/E-2 (suspended); forfeiture of $50.00; and restriction for 14 days.
The record also indicates the applicant had three other periods of AWOL as follows: 10 November to 8 December 1969; 9 December to 18 February 1970; and 23 April 1970 to 3 June 1974.
The evidence of record also indicates that on 4 June 1974 the applicant was apprehended by the FBI and returned to military control. On 7 June 1974 a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) was prepared preferring a charge against the applicant for violation of Article 86 for the AWOL period indicated in the preceding paragraph from 23 April 1970 to 4 June 1974.
The record also contains documented evidence that on 12 June 1974, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service-in lieu of trial by court-martial, 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 an undesirable discharge (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. In addition, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense for which he was charged and indicated that under no circumstances did he desire further rehabilitation because he had no desire to perform further military service.
On 2 July 1974 the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed issuance of a UD. Accordingly, on 12 August 1974 the applicant was discharged after completing 3 years and 1 month of active military service, and accruing 1651 days of time lost due to AWOL.
On 26 January 1981 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) concluded the applicant’s discharge was proper but not equitable. The ADRB determined the applicant’s overall quality of service which included combat service warranted partial relief, in the form of an upgrade of his UD to a general/under honorable conditions discharge (GD), and so directed. Accordingly, the applicant was issued a new DD Form 214 with the character of his service changed to under honorable conditions
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.
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 Board noted the applicant’s contention that his discharge was a gross injustice; however, the evidence of record is clear, and shows the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge and after consulting with legal counsel, he 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, and attested to his understanding of the possible loss of veterans benefits based on receiving a UD discharge.
2. The discharge proceedings conducted were in accordance with law and regulation applicable at the time. The reason for and the character of the discharge, as revised by the ADRB to a GD, 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
Loren G. Harrell
Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709665
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 record also contains...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9708894
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. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707868
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 | CY1997 | 9707480
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 | CY1997 | 9711635
The DD Form 214 documents that the applicant was discharged with a UD on 2 February 1970 after completing 1 year and 10 months of active military service, and accruing 106 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement. On 22 September 1972 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge and found that the discharge process was proper in all respects. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710984
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. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9706825
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 applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199705274
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 applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711615
The applicant’s request was made only after he had been advised, by his appointed military counsel, of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial; the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ; of the possible effects of a UD if the request were approved; and of the procedures and rights available to him. On 19 May 1978 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge and found that the discharge process was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709541
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 26 May 1989 this Board...