| 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 an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he voluntarily requested that be separated from the Army and was told that his discharge would be automatically upgraded. He also states that he didn’t understand what was expected of him and that he needed help as a result of suffering a nervous breakdown and his alcoholism. In support of his application, he submits a Statement In Support Of Claim Form
(VA Form 21-4138).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 8 April 1966, he entered the Army for 3 years. He successfully completed training, was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 70A (Clerk Typist) and was assigned to Germany for his first permanent duty station.
The applicant’s record shows that the highest rank he attained was private first class/E-3 and that he earned the following awards during his active duty tenure: Air Medal; Vietnam Service Medal; and National Defense Service Medal.
The applicant served in Germany from 6 November 1966 to 7 April 1967 without incident and was then assigned to Vietnam, where he arrived for duty on 10 May 1967.
On 10 December 1967, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for wrongfully appropriating a truck and for providing the gate guard a false name. On 23 December 1967, he again accepted NJP for wrongfully appropriating a truck. He completed his tour of duty in Vietnam on 9 May 1968, and was assigned to Fort Dix, New Jersey.
On 22 January 1969, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 2 August to 19 December 1968. He was sentenced to 3 months confinement at hard labor and a forfeiture of $50.00 pay per month for 3 months.
The applicant’s discharge packet is missing from his military records. However, the record does contain a properly constituted separation document (DD Form 214), which shows that on 9 November 1976, he was administratively discharged with an UD, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service/ in lieu of trial by court-martial. At the time of his discharge he had completed a total of 2 years, 5 months and 1 day of creditable active military service and had accrued 2,980 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.
The VA Form 21-4138 provided by the applicant chronicles his difficulties prior to and after his discharge.
There is no evidence to show the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue of limitations.
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 UD.
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 he was unaware of what was expected of him, that he needed help after his nervous breakdown and for his alcoholism, and that he was told his discharge would automatically be upgraded. However, the Board finds there is insufficient evidence to support these claims.
2. The US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits an application requesting a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the discharge was improper or inequitable.
3. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the Army. However, the Board notes the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214, which was authenticated by the applicant with his signature. This document contains the authority and reason for his separation and therefore, the Board presumes government regularity in the discharge process.
4. The separation document confirms that the applicant was discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. Procedurally, this would have required him to consult with legal counsel after being charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge. In addition, he would have had to voluntarily request separation after admitting guilt to the stipulated offense under the UCMJ.
5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant 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 | AR2001058690 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/09/25 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19761109 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200. . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | For the good of the service |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 93.19 | 71.00 |
| 2. 93.23 | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075694C070403
On 29 August 1977, 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 sympathetic to his current medical problems; however, considering the length of his AWOL the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076830C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 7 July 1969, the applicant was separated from active duty with an UD under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. Further, the Board finds that an UD was normally considered appropriate for members separating under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, and it further...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005964C070205
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 11 January 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060005964 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Although the enlistment documentation is not of record, the records show the applicant reenlisted for three years on 21 April 1971. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085032C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. The Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge on 1 March 1973.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014558
The applicant requests that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable or general discharge. In the applicant's personal statement that was submitted with his request for discharge, the applicant states that his wife's request for divorce forced him to decide between her and the Army. On 11 February 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065635C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080373C070215
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 13 January 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board determined that the applicant’s discharge had been proper and equitable, and it voted to deny 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 evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065662C070421
There is no indication in the record that the applicant suffered a medically disabling condition prior to discharge and on 24 October 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board determined the applicant’s discharge had been proper and equitable and denied his request for an upgrade to his discharge. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073818C070403
On 28 October 1971, subsequent to his completing his combat tour in the RVN, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for two periods of AWOL: from 5 June 1970 to 15 July 1970; and from 12 August 1970 to 15 October 1971. In support of his application, the applicant provides a letter confirming that he is being treated by a DVA staff psychologist for a PTSD that is based on his service in the RVN. In contrast to his record of misconduct, the applicant’s military service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070104C070402
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The Court of Military Review set aside the findings of guilty and the resultant sentence, and returned the record of trial to the convening authority and authorized a rehearing if appropriate. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002070104SUFFIXRECONYYYYMMDDDATE BOARDED2002/07/18TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UD)DATE OF DISCHARGE19710423DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200, chapter 10 .