| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Vic Whitney | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher | Member | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge and that his benefits be reinstated.
APPLICANT STATES: That his drug and alcohol abuse prior to his induction and during his military service should be given consideration. He was also the only son that his father had living at home and his father had health problems. His absence without leave (AWOL) was the result of his drug and alcohol abuse. The Army should have seen how he was affected by drug and alcohol abuse, which led to periods of depression. His ability to serve was impaired by his drug and alcohol abuse. Additionally, his post service conduct as an addiction counselor and member of various drug and alcohol committees should be taken into consideration.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was inducted and entered active duty on 4 February 1971, at over 19 years of age. His pre-induction medical examination notes that he admitted to snorting heroin twice with the last experience 5 months prior. He was found qualified for induction. The report also shows that he was cleared by a psychiatric consultation.
He completed training as a military policeman and was assigned to Fort Meade, Maryland. The applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) from 2 July through 29 September 1971. There is no record of punishment concerning this lost time.
On 12 January 1972, he was punished under Article 15, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failure to go. The applicant was AWOL again from 7 February through 3 December 1972.
On 6 December 1972, the applicant was provided a medical examination for the purpose of separation processing. The applicant stated that he was in good health and not taking any medications. He reported a prior service history of jaw dislocation, concussion injuries, and an elbow injury. He was found qualified for separation.
On 14 December 1972, charges were preferred on the applicant for the AWOL offense. After consulting with counsel, the applicant requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. In his request he acknowledged that he might be deprived of many or all benefits provided by the Army and the Department of Veterans Affairs. He did not provide a statement in his own behalf.
On 4 January 1973, the separation authority approved the request and directed separation under other than honorable conditions. Effective 18 January 1973, the applicant was separated under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He had 11 months and 14 days creditable service and 371 days lost time.
On 2 February 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board, in a unanimous decision, voted to deny the applicant an upgrade of his discharge.
The applicant provides a character reference letter that complements the applicant’s competence, knowledge, and maturity as a mental health professional. He also provides certificates that attest to his status as a certified addiction counselor and a certified clinical chemical abuse supervisor.
Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of that regulation provided, in pertinent part, that a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included 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 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 applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and veteran’s benefits. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
2. The applicant's request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received.
3. There is no evidence of record to substantiate the applicant's claim that military authorities were aware of his alleged problems with drugs and alcohol. The Board notes that the applicant did not discuss these problems during his separation physical or provide these matters in mitigation for his separation.
4. While the Board has taken cognizance of the applicant's good post-service conduct, this factor alone does warrant the relief requested.
5. 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.
6. 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
__fe___ __kf___ ___be_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001059537 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011108 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19730118 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, Ch10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A71.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.02 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011167
To deal with the trauma which later became known as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), he self-medicated with alcohol and drugs. There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant requested a hardship discharge prior to his discharge. He stated, when he requested discharge, that he did not like Germany or the Army at all so he reenlisted to go to Vietnam.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013728
The applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of his previous request for an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to a general discharge (GD) or an honorable discharge (HD). For the last period of AWOL, the applicants records contain only a record of the date of his return to military control. His record does contain a DD Form 214 showing he was discharged on 18 October 1972, under other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of the Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064598C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 27 September 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. The Board also determined that the applicant’s military record which included two nonjudicial punishments, one special court-martial conviction and 245 days lost was not satisfactory.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008686C070205
The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable or general discharge. The applicant's military service records show that he was inducted into the Army for 24 months on 17 March 1971. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 28 March 1972.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8705298
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. He was discharged on 8 October 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, having completed 2 years, 2 months and 15 days of service. The drug counselors and treating physicians have determined that his addiction problems probably stemmed from the time of his Vietnam duty.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03858
A 29 September 1972 medical record entry, reports the positive urinalysis report and referral for evaluation by mental health. There is no evidence of record that the vet had pronounced neuropsychiatric symptomology or evidence of psychosis while in service.” He appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board in November 1976 and June 1980, both times his applications for upgrade were denied, concluding: “no evidence to substantiate that the applicant was a drug addict, that the Air Force...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021162
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 3 September 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an under other than honorable conditions discharge. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014751
On 3 January 1973, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for one specification of being AWOL during the period of on or about 10 July 1972 until on or about 18 December 1972. In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charges against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a discharge under other honorable conditions. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011523
On 10 January 1973, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. It is acknowledged he used heroin while serving in Vietnam but evidence shows he voluntarily requested discharge and he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. _______ _X _______...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082728C070215
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. Except for the father's letter, there is no...