| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Beverly A. Young | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Christopher J. Prosser | Member | |
| Ms. Linda D. Simmons | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: That his problems started after his hospitalization in 1969 at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and the orthopedics due to his injuries in Vietnam and mental state. He contends that he was immature, was not afforded “psychiatric counsel”, and was not professionally represented during the Discharge Review Board proceedings. In conclusion, he believes that he was inadequately represented.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Army on 8 December 1967 for a period of three years. He completed basic and advanced individual training and served as a rifleman in Vietnam from 21 May 1968 through 14 April 1969.
After his return to the continental United States, the applicant received seven nonjudicial punishments on various occasions between 15 October 1968 and 17 January 1970 for signing a false official statement and for being absent without leave (AWOL).
On 10 September 1970, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 8 May 1970 to 26 July 1970. He was sentenced to forfeiture of $35.00 pay per month for 6 months and to be restricted to the limits of Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri for 2 months.
Charges were preferred against the applicant on 13 April 1973 for being AWOL from 23 December 1970 to 30 March 1973.
On 17 April 1973, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offenses charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration if an UOTHC discharge were issued. The applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf. In his statement, the applicant stated that his legs were injured while he was in Vietnam. He also stated that he, “just couldn’t take anymore,” and that he did not want to stay in the Army. The applicant underwent a separation medical on 19 April 1973 and was found qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111111.
On 10 May 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed an undesirable discharge.
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 17 May 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He had 2 years, 3 months and 13 days of creditable service and 1,169 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
On 9 March 1979 and 13 August 1984, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. The Board, by unanimous vote, denied the applicant’s request on both occasions.
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 Board considered the applicant’s contentions regarding his injuries sustained in Vietnam, his mental state, his immaturity, and his inadequate representation by “psychiatric counsel”.
2. 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.
3. The applicant's request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with legal counsel, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received.
4. There was no indication of procedural errors in the chapter 10 discharge process which would tend to jeopardize the applicant’s rights.
5. In view of the applicant's numerous acts of indiscipline, it does not appear that his undesirable discharge was too severe.
6. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for his discharge were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
7. 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.
8. 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
RVO____ CJP_____ LDS_____ DENY APPLICATION
INDEX
| CASE ID | AR2001057623 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010830 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19730517 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200,chapter 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | For the Good of the Service |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | Mr. Chun |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086526C070212
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. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 7 August 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088406C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: He completed 8 months of total active service and he reenlisted in the Army on 23 September 1970.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057306C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge. Effective 13 February 1973, the applicant was separated from active duty in the pay grade of E-1 under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075993C070403
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 or an honorable discharge. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063408C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : That he had four years of good service. 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 | 2001062418C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 12 March 1974, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge to honorable. 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 | CY2005 | 20050003632C070206
The applicant requests that his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge to honorable. On 21 September 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge. Presidential Proclamation 4313, issued on 16 September 1974, provided for the issuance of a clemency discharge to certain former soldiers who voluntarily entered into and completed an alternate restitution program specifically designed for former soldiers who received a less...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064027C070421
On 31 July 1970, the applicant was discharged with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 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: The Board is cognizant of the applicant’s Vietnam service and the fact that counseling and group sessions enabled...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040009275C070208
On 28 March 1973, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service, and directed his reduction to the lowest enlisted grade and the issuance of an undesirable discharge. On 27 April 1973, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10. The applicant’s personal problems, and his inability to deal with what had occurred at the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050008709C070206
On 17 December 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued an undesirable discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 19 December 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.