| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Michael L. Engle | Analyst |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III | Member | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that is undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he served his country well. He was sent to the Republic of Vietnam (RVN), was wounded, and received the Bronze Star Medal (BSM) for valor. He contends that he broke down after returning to the United States and currently suffers from a post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). He further states that he was and still is dealing with PTSD and that his psychiatrist supports this request. In support of his application he submits copies of his Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge
(DD Form 214), a certificate showing his award of the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB), and a newspaper article describing his actions of 11 May 1969, resulting in the award of the BSM for valor.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was inducted into the Army on 18 September 1968 for 2 years. He successfully completed his initial training and was assigned to the RVN for duty as a scout observer (11D) with the 1st Squadron, 10th Cavalry, 4th Infantry Division. He attained the rank of specialist four on 18 April 1969.
The applicant was honorably discharged on 28 January 1970, for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. His DD Form 214, effective on that date, shows that he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Purple Heart, the BSM, the Vietnam Service Medal, and the CIB. He received on-the-job training as a supply specialist from 25 March 1970, until his return to the United States on
12 October 1970.
On 29 March 1971, the applicant was convicted by summary court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) (116 days). The sentence included a forfeiture of $100.00 and 60 days restriction.
On 30 March 1971, the applicant again went AWOL. He was dropped from the rolls of the Army on 17 May 1971. He voluntarily returned to military control on
2 September 1971, and subsequently charged with violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for AWOL (157 days).
On 3 September 1971, the applicant voluntarily requested to be discharged from the Army for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
The applicant consulted with counsel, acknowledged the possible effects of receiving an under other than honorable discharge, and elected to make a statement in his own behalf. He stated that he hated Army life and that he would repeat his AWOL if not discharged. He asked for a general discharge based upon his tour of duty in the RVN and his awards, but would take any discharge to get out.
The applicant’s company commander recommended an UD, while the battalion and brigade level authorities recommended that he receive a General Discharge Certificate.
On 1 October 1971, the appropriate authority approved the requested separation, directing that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He was so discharged on 4 October 1971. He completed 2 years, 2 months and 17 days of creditable active service and had 297 days lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
On 20 August 1981, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for upgrade of his discharge. He requested a personal appearance. He contended that his discharge was inequitable and that he would present supporting documentation at the time of the hearing. On 4 February 1982, he was notified that his request for a personal appearance was approved. The ADRB convened on 30 March 1983; however, neither the applicant nor his legal counsel appeared. The ADRB considered the quality of his service in the RVN, taking note of his awards. It noted the length of his AWOL and his statement at the time of his discharge indicating that he would continue to go AWOL. It looked for other factors which would mitigate his substandard character of service. The ADRB unanimously voted not to change the reason for his discharge, and voted three to two against changing his characterization of service.
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.
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 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.
2. The type of discharge directed and the reason therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
3. While the applicant’s quality of service in the RVN is very commendable, it is not sufficient to overcome the seriousness of his repeated misconduct upon returning to the United States.
4. The applicant’s contention that his misconduct was the result of his suffering from PTSD at the time, is not supported by any evidence of record. He has not provided any evidence or mitigating argument to support his contention.
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
__MKP _ __TBR __ __RKS__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001057151 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/08/07 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19711004 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, CHPT 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | A70.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018900
The applicant requests his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). All indicate he was honorably discharged and confirm he completed a total of 4 years, 11 months, and 14 days of honorable active duty service prior to beginning his last enlistment on 11 August 1970. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing the applicant was given an honorable discharge from the Army on 2...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001947C070206
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 October 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050001947 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. The applicant states, in effect, he received the CIB during his service in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN), but the badge was not included in the list of awards entered on his separation document (DD Form 214). Item 24...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006250
There is no evidence showing that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. The separation authority may issue a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) or an honorable discharge (HD) if warranted by the members record of service; however, an UOTHC discharge was normally considered appropriate for members separated under this provision of the regulation. In this case,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090232C070212
Member The applicant and counsel if any did not appear before the Board. This program, known as the DOD Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) required, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, that a discharge upgrade to either honorable or general be issued in the case of any individual who had either completed a normal tour of duty in Southeast Asia, been wounded in action, been awarded a military decoration other than a service medal, had received an honorable discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006726
The BSM and CIB are individual awards, not authorized unit awards. The evidence of record is void of any orders or other documents that indicate the applicant was ever recommended for or awarded the BSM by proper authority while serving on active duty. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073818C070403
On 28 October 1971, subsequent to his completing his combat tour in the RVN, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for two periods of AWOL: from 5 June 1970 to 15 July 1970; and from 12 August 1970 to 15 October 1971. In support of his application, the applicant provides a letter confirming that he is being treated by a DVA staff psychologist for a PTSD that is based on his service in the RVN. In contrast to his record of misconduct, the applicant’s military service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057743C070420
The applicant requests that his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) be corrected to show that he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal (BSM) with one oak leaf cluster and the Purple Heart. The applicant states that his DD Form 214 does not show all of his awards. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1, Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Registrar, provides, in pertinent part that the 1 st Battalion, 12 th Cavalry, 1 st Cavalry Division was awarded the Valorous Unit Award...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021727
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 22 April 1971, the applicant requested discharge for the good of the service under chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Separations), after declining to consult with counsel; c. On 29 April and 30 March 1971, recommendations for approval of discharge request from chain of command; d. On 30 March 1971, Staff Judge Advocate review determined chapter 10 discharge packet legally sufficient;...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057952C070420
This document shows the unit to which the applicant was assigned was cited for award of the Meritorious Unit Commendation (MUC) for the period 5 May 1965-4 May 1967 by Department of the Army General Order Number 48, dated 1968. The applicant was awarded the BSM with "V" Device by General Orders Number 691, Headquarters, 173 rd Airborne Brigade (Separate), dated 24 April 1967; therefore, he is entitled to correction of his DD Form 214 to show this award. RECOMMENDATION: That all of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060017109C071029
Qawiy A. Sabree | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. It states, in pertinent part, that a bronze service star is authorized with this award for each campaign a member is credited with participating in while serving in the RVN. The evidence of record confirms the applicant held and served in an infantry MOS in a qualifying infantry unit while serving in the RVN.