| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Beverly A. Young | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Mark D. Manning | Member | |
| Mr. Jose A. Martinez | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to a general under honorable conditions discharge and that his rank be restored to sergeant (SGT)/pay grade E-5.
APPLICANT STATES: That he served honorably to include his tour in Vietnam. He states that he was totally “burned” by the U.S. Army after his “antiwar” sentiments and incidents at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant was enlisted in the Army on 19 November 1970, completed training as a tractor operator, and served in Vietnam from 23 October 1971 through 17 August 1972.
The applicant received nonjudicial punishment for being AWOL from 15 December 1972 to 3 January 1973. His punishment consisted of reduction to specialist four and forfeiture of $150.00 pay per month for two months. His records show he was AWOL again from 24 April 1973 to 18 September 1973.
Charges were preferred against the applicant for one period of AWOL; however, his Charge Sheet is not in his records. In the unit commander’s recommendation, he states that the applicant was pending trial for one period of AWOL for a total of 148 days. The unit commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge for the good of the service. The applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf.
The applicant’s complete facts and circumstances pertaining to his discharge proceedings are not present in his records. However, his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) indicates that he was discharged on 26 October 1973, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service and was issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge. He had 2 years, 5 months and 24 days of creditable service with 168 days of lost time due to AWOL.
There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute 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 undesirable 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:
1. The Board notes that the applicant’s complete discharge processing papers are not in his records. However, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.
2. The Board considered the applicant’s contentions that he served honorably; however, his records show that he received nonjudicial punishment and was AWOL for a total of 168 days after returning from Vietnam.
3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for his discharge were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. Therefore, there is no basis for upgrading the applicant’s discharge or restoring his rank to SGT.
4. 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.
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
JL______ MDM_____ JAM_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001058883 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011011 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19731026 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200,chapter 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | For the Good of the Service |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004701
Following consultation with legal counsel, he 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. On 23 January 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. Additionally, there is no evidence which shows his misconduct was a direct result of the alleged condition.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017685
The applicant requests upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. On 30 March 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed his request for upgrade of his discharge and undesirable discharge and determined his discharge was properly issued, but the characterization of service was inequitable. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. deleting from item 13 of his DD Form 214 for the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073907C070403
He was told that he would receive an honorable discharge, but it would take several months to process. The applicant also provided a copy of his request for discharge for the good of the service. In addition, lacking any evidence of record that shows that the applicant’s reduction to PV1 was the result of some UCMJ action, the Board presumes he was reduced to the lowest enlisted grade as a result of receiving the UD, as was required by regulation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011976
Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Military Awards), in effect at the time, provides that the Good Conduct Medal is awarded to individuals who have completed a qualified period of active duty enlisted service. The evidence of record shows he was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: * awarding the applicant the Good Conduct Medal (1st Award) for exemplary behavior, efficiency, and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008247
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 16 October 1973, the applicant was discharged from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service with an undesirable discharge. On 10 September 1974 and 16 April 1986, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicants request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110009510
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. On 10 May 1972, he was discharged accordingly.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001118
He also acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request were approved, he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 6 and 7 September 1973, his chain of command, including his immediate, intermediate, and senior commanders, recommended approval of the discharge with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040008698C070208
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. Counsel requests, in effect, that the Board exercise sound equitable principles regarding the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge and take into consideration all of the factors associated with his service. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011520
In his request for discharge, he acknowledged he understood if the discharge request were approved, he might be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. There is no evidence in the applicant's available record that shows he ever requested assistance from his command in dealing with any alcohol or drug related problems while serving on active duty. Based on his record of misconduct, his service clearly did not meet the standards...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003263
His record contains a DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and he received an under other than honorable conditions discharge. There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. However, his record contains a DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged for the good of the service on 14 March 1973, under the provisions of...