| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. P. A. Castle | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Charles Gainor | Member | |
| Mr. Joe R. Schroeder | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that while he was in the Army he suffered from extreme anxiety and he abused drugs. He states that the Army never diagnosed his drug condition and that the character of his discharge is preventing him from receiving treatment from the Veteran’s Administration (VA).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant obtained his mother’s consent to enlist for 3 years at age seventeen. On 11 June 1969 he entered active duty and successfully completed basic and advanced individual training.
On 15 October 1969 he was assigned to Germany and on 17 February 1970 was convicted by a special court martial of failure to obey a lawful order, failure to go to his appointed place of duty and disrespectful behavior. On 10 March 1970, the sentence was approved and his sentence consisted of confinement at hard labor for one month, forfeiture of $50.00 per month for 4 months and reduction to Private E-1. His record shows he continued to perform unsatisfactorily. On 17 April 1970 he received punishment under Article 15, UCMJ for failure to obey a lawful order and being disrespectful in language to his superior noncommissioned officer (NCO). On 18 July 1970 the applicant was charged with grand larceny, breaking and entering and theft. Pending trial by special court-martial his commander recommended he be discharged for unsuitability.
Prior to the finalization of the recommended discharge the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. His request acknowledged that he understood the nature and consequences of the undesirable discharge he might receive. The separation authority approved the applicant’s request on 5 August 1970 and he was issued an undesirable discharge on 12 October 1970. The total active duty service credited to him at separation was 1 year, 3 months, and 6 days. He had 26 days of lost time.
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.
The applicant’s military record is lacking evidence of his contention that he suffered from anxiety and that he used drugs excessively. The separation examination stated “no significant findings” and was signed by the applicant on 29 July 1970.
AR 635-40 pertinently provides that when a soldier is being processed for separation for reasons other than physical disability, continued performance of assigned duty commensurate with his rank or grade until the soldier is scheduled for separation, creates a presumption that the soldier is fit.
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. In the absence of compelling evidence that the applicant was unable to both tell right from wrong and adhere to the right, the applicant's reported background as a drug abuser does not mitigate the offenses for which he sought discharge to avoid trial by court-martial and for which his service was appropriately characterized.
2. The applicant’s military record does not make any reference to the existence of drug abuse prior to his discharge nor does the applicant provide evidence that his disciplinary actions were mitigated by drug abuse. There is no mention of any health conditions on his separation physical.
3. 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. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
4. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to 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
___jrs __ ___cg___ ___ls____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001058145 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/10/10 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1970/10/12 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070011299C080213
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The applicant was almost 20 years old when he enlisted and he was over 20 years old when he was assigned to Germany.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088733C070403
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. On 3 March 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued an undesirable discharge. The applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 8 March 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040009558C070208
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 14 August 1970 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635- 200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. The applicant's record of service included drug related offenses, four nonjudicial punishments and 56 days of lost time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070009401
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's records do not show any significant acts of valor during his military service. In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charges against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or an undesirable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | AR20140010367
Since he had been assigned to CDCEC on 13 January 1970, there were only 11 days in which he was not facing charges, AWOL, or in confinement as a result of misconduct or a court-martial. The separation authority subsequently approved the applicant's request for a discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. In addition, he went AWOL again prior to his return to military control on 4 November 1970 and he had almost 1 year of lost time due to being AWOL and/or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008974
Following consult 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. Therefore, he was requesting a discharge for the good of the service. On 31 January 1974 and 8 January 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge and determined his discharge was both proper and appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058710C070421
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 notes that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005700
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge. His records do not specifically state the punishment imposed against him for being AWOL. However, the available records show that he was discharged on 1 June 1972 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.
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 | 2001061328C070421
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: Therefore, even if he had sought and received treatment for alcoholism while he was in the service, it would not have prevented his command from preferring charges against him for the offenses which formed the basis for his request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.