| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Ms. Joann Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Mark D. Manning | Member | |
| Mr. Jose A. Martinez | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was young and did not understand the consequences of his actions at the time. He notes his only excuse for being AWOL (absent without leave) on two occasions was that he was immature. He states that he has worked very hard since his discharge from the Army, is 50 years old now, and has no criminal record. He submits no evidence in support of his request.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted for a period of 3 years on 14 March 1969. He was 18 years old at the time, with 8 years of formal education and a GT score of 107.
Following successful completion of basic training, the applicant was assigned to Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland to attend AIT (advanced individual training). On 1 June 1969, while undergoing AIT, the applicant departed AWOL. He returned to military control on 10 July 1969 and was convicted by a special court-martial.
In September 1969 the applicant was assigned to Fort Knox, Kentucky to complete advanced individual training as an armor crewman. He successfully completed that training and in November 1969, while enroute overseas, he again departed AWOL. He returned to military control in July 1971 and in August 1971, at the age of 20, departed AWOL for a third time. He returned to military control in March 1972.
When charges were preferred, the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. His request acknowledged he understood the nature and consequences of the undesirable discharge, which he might receive. He indicated he understood he could be denied some or all veterans' benefits as a result of his discharge and that he may be deprived of rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law. He did not submit any statements on his own behalf.
The medical history, which he submitted for his medical examination for separation, indicated his health was good and the evaluating physician found him medically qualified for separation with a physical profile of 1 1 1 1 1 1.
His request was approved and on 25 April 1972 the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He received an undesirable 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 have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. 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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. While the Board has considered the applicant’s age at the time of his military service and his contention that he has had good post-service conduct, none of these factors, either individually or in sum, warrant the relief requested.
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 this 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
__JL____ __MDM__ __JAM __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001057231 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011011 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058577C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. He did not complete his airborne training and received orders transferring him to Fort Lewis, Washington with a report date of 25 April 1971.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199705807
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He states that he received awards and decoration, served successfully in combat, and was too close to completing his tour in the Army to receive a bad discharge. The applicant submitted a request for an upgrade of his discharge to the Army Discharge Review Board on 17 September 1974, 10 June 1978, and 15 November 1979, and all were denied.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010415
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant failed to provide any evidence which shows that he requested any kind of assistance from his chain of command, and there is no record of any family issues in his military records. Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel) provides, in pertinent part, that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057169C070420
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a medical or general discharge. A DD Form 4, Enlistment Contract – Armed Forces of the US, reflect the applicant enlisted for training in Army career group 91, medical care and treatment. The applicant has provided no evidence, other than his personal statement, and the record contains no evidence to substantiate his claim that he was not properly identified as an alcoholic and therefore denied treatment during his service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100001C070208
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. The application submitted in this case is dated 12 August 2003.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001055265C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the 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 | CY2008 | 20080018058
He also requests that his under other than honorable discharge be upgraded. The applicant states, in effect, that his DD Form 214 does not show he served in Vietnam. He was 19 and 20 years old, respectively, when he went AWOL.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018597
On 16 June 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered his request under the DOD SDRP and directed his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge effective 4 April 1977. This program, known as the DOD 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, had...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070651C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He remained in Germany until 9 July 1969, when he was transferred to Vietnam. He extended his tour in Vietnam for a period of 6 months and was granted a 30-day special leave with a return date of 10 June 1970.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014096
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 29 June 1973, he was discharged accordingly. There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.