| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Beverly A. Young | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he served two years in Vietnam during the periods 1967 to 1968 and 1969 to 1970 and that he would like his “under honorable” discharge be changed to an honorable discharge.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He entered active duty on 26 August 1966 for a period of three years. He completed on the job training as a supply handler and served in Vietnam from 12 May 1967 through 9 May 1968. He was honorably discharged on 2 September 1968 for immediate reenlistment and completed another tour in Vietnam from 21 April 1969 through 6 April 1970. He was promoted to specialist five in September 1969 and awarded the Good Conduct Medal and the Army Commendation Medal during his second enlistment.
The applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he was absent without leave (AWOL) from 23 December 1969 to 3 January 1970.
On various dates between January 1971 and January 1972, the applicant received four nonjudicial punishments for being disrespectful in language towards a sergeant; for wrongfully using provoking words towards a specialist four; for dishonorably failing to pay a debt; for being AWOL for one day;
and for making and uttering a total of eight worthless checks to the Fort Knox Noncommissioned Officer Open Mess and to the Army and Air Force Exchange Service.
The applicant’s personnel records contain an undated Report of Mental Status Evaluation. The applicant was found to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings. The psychiatrist cleared the applicant for any administrative action.
On 10 February 1972, the applicant’s unit commander notified him of pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, due to his unsuitable character. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification, consulted with legal counsel, waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 11 February 1972, the separation authority waived rehabilitation, waived the applicant’s request for a hearing before a board of officers, and directed issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 23 February 1972, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unsuitability. On his current enlistment, he had 3 years, 5 months and 10 days of creditable service with 13 days of lost time due to AWOL. He had a total of 5 years, 5 months, and 17 days of active military service.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability. It provided, in pertinent part, for the discharge due to unsuitability of those individuals with character and behavior disorders and disorders of intelligence as determined by medical authority. When separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.
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 contention that he served two years in Vietnam.
2. Records show the applicant was AWOL for twelve days and received four nonjudicial punishments after he returned from Vietnam. The Board determined that the applicant’s overall military service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel sufficient to warrant an honorable discharge.
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.
4. In view of the applicant's numerous acts of indiscipline, it does not appear that his general discharge was too severe.
5. Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons for his separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
6. 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.
7. 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
CLA_____ DPH_____ CLG_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001058221 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010911 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19720223 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-212 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Unsuitability |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004344
When separation for unsuitability was warranted, an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individuals entire record. The evidence of record shows the applicants separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability was administratively correct, all requirements of law and regulations were met, the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process, and the applicant was properly...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040008721C070208
He served in Vietnam with D Company, 1st Battalion, 77th Armor from 1 July 1968 through 26 June 1969. On 28 September 1971, the applicant departed Vietnam. Therefore, there is insufficient basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011457
Records show that nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant on 25 January 1972 for being AWOL. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 24 February 1972 with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability (character and behavior disorders). Since the applicants record of service included three nonjudicial punishments and 58 days of lost time, his record of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020436
His military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army in the rank/grade of private (PV1)/E-1 on 5 April 1968, for 3 years. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), then in effect, provided that an honorable discharge was a separation with honor. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provided that a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012532
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 3-7b, states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. _______ _ _x______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711669
On 3 June 1970, the commander notified the applicant that he was being considered for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability. 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. Considering the applicant’s conviction by one special and one summary court-martial plus his three Article 15s, acts of indiscipline covering more...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002693
The patient has been AWOL three times and has received seven Articles 15. On 17 July 1970, the applicant was separated with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability due to a character and behavior disorder. Therefore, in view of the foregoing the applicant's military service record should be corrected to show he was honorably discharged, effective 17 June 1970, under the extraordinary provisions of Department of the Army Memorandum, dated 8...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021730
The psychiatrist recommended the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability. Given the circumstances in this case, the applicant's discharge was inequitable for the following reasons: * he served 4 years, 1 month, and 4 days of creditable service * he served in Vietnam for 1 year, 8 months, and 27 days * he was twice wounded and twice cited for meritorious service * he was promoted to SSG/E-6 in three short years * from 30 November 1966 to 7 May...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017268
On 5 March 1970, the applicant's immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability) by reason of unfitness. Consistent with the chain of command's recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unfitness and directed he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate and be reduced...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018018
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD); his rank be changed from private first class (PFC)/E-3 to specialist four (SP4)/E-4; and to have his record show he was seriously wounded. On 21 December 1970, the applicants unit commander advised the applicant that he was recommending him for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations Discharge Unfitness and...