| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Vic Whitney | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Eric N. Anderson | Member | |
| Mr. Hubert O. Fry | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That the drugs that were found in his room were not his and he was never tested for drug use. He was not provided counsel nor was it proven that he was using drugs. He was told he would go to the stockade for 20 years.
COUNSEL CONTENDS: That the contentions of the applicant reflect the probative facts needed for equitable review and that the Board’s final decision reflect sound, equitable principles on behalf of the applicant.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted and entered active duty on 30 September 1970 at over 20 years of age. While still in training he was Absent Without Leave (AWOL) for 339 days. His approved sentence by special court-martial included confinement at hard labor for 5 months.
He was released from confinement on 9 February 1972. He was AWOL again for 44 days, from 28 March to 10 May 1972. There is no record of punishment for this AWOL offense. On 9 August 1972, He was punished under Article 15, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, for absence from his place of duty.
On 2 November 1972, charges were preferred on the applicant for possession of 180 capsules of LSD and 20 grams of marijuana. On 9 November 1972, after consulting with counsel, the applicant requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. His signed statement notes that he had the opportunity to consult with counsel and that appointed counsel had fully advised him of his rights. The request is counter signed by appointed counsel.
Also in the available record is a second memorandum, dated 9 November 1972, which is also signed by the applicant. This memorandum states that the applicant was informed of the maximum punishment for his offenses, which could total 10 years confinement at hard labor, total forfeiture of pay, and a dishonorable discharge. The applicant was also informed that the Army could not force him to request a discharge, but if he received an undesirable discharge, he would be deprived of most or all Federal and state veteran’s benefits. Additionally, he was informed that he could apply to the Army Discharge Review Board or this Board for an upgrade of his discharge, but that only a small number were approved.
The command Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the request for discharge, noted the applicant’s previous violations, and recommended that the separation authority approve separation with an undesirable discharge. On 22 November 1972, the separation authority, a major general, approved the applicant’s request and directed separation with an undesirable discharge.
Effective 24 November 1972, the applicant was separated under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, under conditions other than honorable. He had 8 months and 29 days creditable service and 510 days lost time.
There is no evidence of record that the applicant filed a request for an upgrade of his discharge with the Army Discharge Review Board within the 15-year time limit.
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 have been 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 an undesirable discharge.
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 applicant’s contentions regarding counsel and the notion that he would spend 20 years in the stockade lack credibility given the evidence of record. The applicant signed two statements concerning the voluntary nature of his request and the extent of advice of counsel.
2. Neither applicant nor counsel has established error or injustice in the charges preferred for possession of illegal drugs. The time for the applicant to prove his innocence was prior to his request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant's request for a chapter 10 discharge, 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.
3. The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.
4. 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 this requirement.
5. 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
__ro____ ___ea__ __hf____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001052241 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010726 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19721124 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, CH 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A74.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.02 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024882
The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable or a general discharge. Following consultation with legal counsel, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. On 21 January 1975, the separation authority approved his request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000203C070206
The applicant's commander was informed that on 28 July 1972, the applicant was released by the Vietnamese Immigration Police and he was returned over to the US Military Police. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to upgrade his discharge. As a result, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice to this Board expired on 27 April 1983.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081981C070215
He states he continued to smoke marijuana and 6 months later he joined the Navy. The specific facts concerning the applicant’s separation from the Army are not in the record; however, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 15 January 1974 under the provisions of chapter 10, paragraph 10-1, Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012152
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to fully honorable. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051565C070420
The Board considered the following evidence: APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded to honorable. He made a statement in his own behalf wherein he stated that from December 1969 until the present he served well.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130006581
He enlisted in the Army in January 1971 (i.e., June 1972) and he was at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, when he began to have problems with his eye. In his request for discharge, he acknowledged he understood if the discharge request were approved, he might be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. His record of service shows he never completed BCT, he received NJP for being AWOL, and he again went AWOL for almost 2 months.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004379
The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. On 5 August 1971 after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations General Provisions for Discharge and Release), chapter 10. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate at the time of the applicant's discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040006387C070208
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 7 June 1972, the commander recommended approval of the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service with a UD. A Criminal Investigation Division (CID) Report of Investigation shows that, on 7 June 1972, while in the Fort Sam Houston Post Stockade, the applicant and two accomplices (Soldiers) forced a fourth Soldier to perform oral sodomy on them by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061142C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. This Board accepted his application (DD Form 149), dated 8 August 2001.Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057282C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 29 May 1971, he departed this unit in an AWOL status and remained absent until 7 July 1971 when he was returned to military control at Fort Polk, Louisiana. 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...