| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Joyce A. Wright | Analyst |
| Ms. Shirley Powell | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy | Member | |
| Mr. Allen L. Raub | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be changed to
show that he was separated or retired by reason of physical disability.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was in an automobile accident prior to enlisting on active duty. In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) and a copy of his medical records.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant was administered an entrance medical examination on 23 February 1971, and his Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination) indicated that he was qualified for induction with a 111121 profile.
The applicant was inducted on 23 February 1971, as a communications center specialist and was honorably discharged on 28 February 1971, for the purpose
of immediate reenlistment. He reenlisted on 1 March 1971.
On 25 March 1971, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being AWOL from 16 to 25 March 1971 (9 days). His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and 14 days restriction.
Charges were preferred against the applicant on 8 December 1972, for being AWOL from 1 April 1971 to 10 January 1972 (284 days), from 26 to 30 April 1972 (5 days), and from 4 May to 1 December 1972 (212 days).
On 14 December 1972, he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10. In doing so, he acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA) if a discharge under other than honorable conditions were issued. He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 15 December 1972, and was found qualified for separation with a 111111 physical profile.
On 28 December 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The applicant was discharged on 31 January 1973. He had a total of
6 months and 14 days of creditable service and 510 days of lost time due to AWOL.
The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 23 April 1973. The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and denied his request on 15 August 1974.
The applicant reapplied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge under the Department of Defense (DOD) Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) on 16 June 1977. The ADRB determined that the applicant was properly discharged and denied his request on 25 November 1977.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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 SDRP, often referred to as the “Carter Program,” was announced on 29 March 1977. The program mandated upgrade of administrative discharges if the applicant met one of seven specified criteria to include various aspects of service in Vietnam. Reasons for granting an upgrade under secondary criteria include age, aptitude, education level, alcohol/drug problem, record of citizenship, etc.
Title 10, United States Code, chapter 61, provides for the disability retirement or separation of a member who is physically unfit to perform the duties of his/her office, rank, grade, or rating because of a disability incurred while entitled to basic pay.
Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 2-2b, as amended, provides that when a member is being separated for reasons other than physical disability, his/her continued performance of duty creates a presumption of fitness which can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that he/she was unable to perform his/her duties or that acute grave illness or injury or other deterioration of physical condition, occurring immediately prior to, or coincident with separation, rendered the member unfit.
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 contention that he was in an automobile accident prior to enlisting on active duty; however, competent medical authorities determined that the applicant was qualified for enlistment with a physical profile of 111121.
2. The applicant has failed to show, or provide evidence which shows,
that he was diagnosed with any medical condition incurred while entitled to receive basic pay, which was so severe as to render the applicant medically unfit for retention on active duty. Accordingly, the applicant was separated for reasons other than physical disability.
3. The Board also notes the applicant’s excessive amount of lost time due to AWOL which is too serious to be excused or to warrant relief.
4. The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable law and regulations.
5. The type of separation directed and the reasons for that separation appear to be appropriate considering all of the available 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
__sp___ __to___ __ar_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001058891 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011023 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19730131 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C, 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011250
The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 11 April 1977, the applicant submitted a request for an upgrade of his discharge under the SDRP. On 8 November 1977, the applicant was notified by the President, ADRB that: * his discharge upgrade could not be affirmed under standards required by Public Law 95-126 * his discharge may impact his ability to acquire VA benefits 12.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016942
On 12 December 1977, the applicant's discharge was upgraded from an undesirable discharge to a general discharge, under honorable conditions under the DOD SDRP. This program, known as the DOD SDRP, required, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, that a discharge upgrade to either honorable or general be issued in the case of any individual who had either completed a normal tour of duty in Southeast Asia, been wounded in action, been awarded a military decoration other than a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027142
The applicant requests his discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). On 30 August 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he receive a UD. Notwithstanding the initial upgrade of his discharge under the SDRP based on his service in the RVN, it is clear the 1978 determination of the ADRB not to affirm this upgrade action under the uniform discharge review standards established in DOD Directive 1332-28 was the correct action...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120019232
c. On 20 July 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded the applicant's undesirable discharge to a general discharge. There are now two medical reports establishing that the applicant was suffering from psychological problems at the time he was AWOL. His records contain and counsel provides a copy of a letter, dated 16 August 1977, which shows he was notified that after reviewing the findings and conclusion of the ADRB, the Secretary of the Army directed notification that his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008333
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge under honorable conditions to an honorable discharge. The applicant's record contains the following DA Forms 268 showing: a. on 29 June 1971 while assigned to Fort Gordon, GA, he was pending disciplinary action for being AWOL from 8 January through 15 June 1971; b. on 28 September 1971, an AWOL charge was dropped (no reason shown) and the applicant was reassigned to Fort Dix for ultimate assignment to the U.S. Army Republic of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020939
The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to honorable. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The ADRB reviewed his discharge as required by law and granted him an upgrade of his discharge to a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130006639
The applicant provides: * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) * two Standard Forms (SF) 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 22 January 1969 and 12 August 1971 * DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form), dated 14 May 1971 * three DA Form 3349 (Medical Condition - Physical Profile Record), dated 13 November 1970, 15 March 1971, and 19 October 1971 * five pages of SFs 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care), dated between 13 November 1971 and 26 April...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019876
The applicant requests his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions. On 31 July 1972, he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service with an undesirable discharge. This program, known as the DOD Discharge Review Program (Special) (SDRP) required, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, that a discharge upgrade to either honorable or general be issued in the case of any...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003367C070208
His DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635- 212 by reason of unfitness with an undesirable discharge and with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. There is no medical evidence of record that shows the applicant had any illness or medical problem prior to his discharge on 21 September 1971. Evidence shows that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040006868C070208
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general, honorable or medical discharge. Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at that time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for conviction by civil court. Evidence of record shows that during the applicant's military service he received one special court-martial, was confined by military and civilian authorities, was charged and convicted of second degree burglary, and of violating...