| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to either a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) or an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was absent without leave (AWOL) on the three occasions prior to serving in Vietnam and during his tour in Vietnam he was caught with a counterfeit ration card. He claims that other than these minor offenses he served well in Vietnam. He indicates that upon his return to Fort Benning, Georgia, he was court-martialed, which resulted in his receiving an UD. He further states that his immaturity and youthfulness were also contributing factors to his misconduct and the resultant discharge.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 3 September 1965, the applicant entered the Army for 3 years. He successfully completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 67A (Aircraft Maintenance Crewman).
The applicant’s record shows that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private first class/E-3 (PFC/E-3), which he attained on 9 March 1967 and that he was reduced to private/E-2 on 3 January 1966 and private/E-1 on 21 December 1967. It also shows that he earned the following awards: Vietnam Service Medal with two bronze service stars, Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with 60 Device, and National Defense Service Medal.
The record shows no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition accomplished by the applicant during his active duty tenure. However, it does verify an extensive disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on three separate occasions and separate convictions by a summary court-martial (SCM) and three special
courts-martial (SPCM).
The applicant accepted NJP on the following three dates for the offenses indicated: 25 October 1965, theft; 22 December 1966, broke arrest; 15 April 1967, off limits and uniform violations. His court-martial convictions were as follows: 23 May 1966, SPCM for wrongfully and willfully discharging a firearm; 21 January 1967, SCM possession of a counterfeit ration card and failure to obey a lawful order; 14 December 1967, SPCM for attempted theft and concealed weapon; 4 March 1968, SPCM AWOL from 9 January to 13 February 1968.
On 4 March 1968, the applicant was notified by his commander that separation action was being initiated against him for unfitness, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. The commander stated his basis for taking the action was the applicant’s frequent incidents of a discreditable nature involving military authorities. The applicant acknowledged the separation action, waived his right to consulting counsel, and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
The separation action was approved by the appropriate authority, who directed the applicant receive an UD and on 15 May 1968, the applicant was discharged from the Army accordingly. At the time of his discharge he had completed a total of 2 years, 4 months, and 19 days of creditable active military service and had accrued 124 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.
On 11 December 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge after having determined that the discharge was proper and equitable.
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel who are found unfit or unsuitable for further military service. Paragraph 6a(1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness. An UD was 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 notes the applicant’s contentions that other than a minor offense he served well in Vietnam and that immaturity and youthfulness contributed to his misconduct. However, the Board finds none of these factors are sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the discharge.
2. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations. The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, after full consideration of his entire record, the Board concludes that the character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall record of service.
3. Further, the Board notes and congratulates the applicant’s post service conduct and his successful continuous employment. However, these factors alone do not provide a sufficient basis for granting the requested relief.
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
__JNS___ ___LE___ __REB___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001058668 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/09/25 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19680515 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-212 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Unfitness |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 93.01. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004646
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. The separation authority could issue an honorable discharge (HD) or general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions if warranted by the member's overall record of service; however, a UD was normally considered appropriate for members...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000386C070206
The applicant requested consideration by a board of officers and to personally appear before that board. The board recommended the applicant be discharged from the service due to unfitness with issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069983C070402
The Board considered the following evidence: He believes that his PTSD symptoms are related to the rape incident in Vietnam. He had completed 11 months and 18 days of active military service.
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | 20060003329
On 26 April 1968, the separation authority approved the separation action on the applicant and directed that he receive an UD. The applicant's contention that his overall record of service, and post service good conduct support an upgrade of his discharge, and the supporting documents he submitted were carefully considered. The evidence confirms the applicant had an extensive disciplinary history throughout the time he served, which included the time he served in the RVN.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710380
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 applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080764C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: 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 | CY2002 | 2002075234C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 18 December 1974, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. On 18 December 1974, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004409C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded. Evidence shows that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time and that the ADRB later upgraded the applicant's discharge from Undesirable to General Under Honorable Conditions (although the upgrade was not later affirmed under Public Law 95-126). Based on these facts, the applicant’s service clearly did not meet the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064909C070421
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. However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the Board found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076702C070215
He also claims that the recurrent memories from the war were more than he could handle, and he was on strong pain medication for frequent headaches. On 5 October 1973, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed the applicant’s case and after determining that his discharge was proper and equitable, it denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the...