| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Vic Whitney | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: That due to his youth and immaturity he was not making responsible decisions and was discharged due to drugs and shirking his duties. He is more responsible now. The discharge was too harsh for the crime he committed. He has paid his debt to society. He submits three letters of character reference in support of his application.
COUNSEL CONTENDS: That the applicant’s overall service is more deserving of a general discharge. He served in Vietnam and the availability of drugs precipitated his misconduct. He was young with a limited education that diminished his ability to serve. Under current standards the applicant would have had the service of a drug rehabilitation program that may have allowed him to return to duty drug free.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted and entered active duty on 28 November 1969. He was trained as a cook but spent 4 months as a tank loader before his assignment to Vietnam. He was promoted to the pay grade of E-4 effective 19 September 1970.
From 12 January to 12 April 1970, he was punished under Article 15, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice on five occasions. The offenses included absence from his place of duty on five occasions, possession of four pounds of marijuana, and wrongful appropriation of a .45 caliber pistol. His punishment included restriction and extra duty, forfeitures of pay, and reduction to the pay grade of E-1.
On 22 May 1971, charges were preferred on the applicant for possession of opium and two specifications of absence from his place of duty. There is no evidence of record to show the final adjudication of these charges.
A 31 May 1971 psychiatric evaluation determined that the applicant had an immature and inadequate personality and suffered from drug abuse. He was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right. He was fully alert and oriented with appropriate affect. There was no evidence of a thought disorder or evidence of a psychosis.
On 1 June 1971, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intention to recommend separation for unfitness based on his drug abuse. After consultation with counsel, the applicant waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf and requested consideration of his case by a board of officers with representation by counsel.
On 26 August 1971, a board of officers convened to consider the applicant’s case. The board noted his lengthy history of punishments and attempts at counseling and rehabilitation by his command. The board found that the applicant was undesirable for further retention in the Army because of drug abuse and his established pattern of shirking. The board recommended separation for unfitness with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
Effective 29 September 1971, the applicant was separated in the pay grade of E-1 under the authority of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness. He had 1 year, 10 months, and 2 days creditable service.
The applicant submits three character reference letters that discuss his honest and hard working nature and assistance to the poor and needy.
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, provided the policy for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness. An individual was subject to separation for unfitness because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, drug abuse, or an established pattern of shirking. When separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.
On 3 December 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), in a unanimous decision, voted to deny the applicant an upgrade of his discharge. The ADRB determined that his disciplinary record that began 2 months after his arrival in Vietnam, the recorded attempts of rehabilitation, and his poor conduct and performance in a combat zone did not warrant upgrading 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:
1. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge and the reasons therefore were commensurate with his overall record.
2. The applicant was afforded numerous opportunities to improve his performance and conduct but continued to demonstrate a lack of concern for his situation.
3. His claim of good post service conduct and leading a more responsible life is commendable, but it does not serve as an overriding consideration to excuse his record of indiscipline and persistent drug abuse and the granting of a discharge upgrade.
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
__ao___ ___jm___ __le___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001059628 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011127 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19710929 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-212 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A54.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.02 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007748
On 10 April 1972, the separation approval authority waived further rehabilitation requirements and approved that the applicant be discharged with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for frequent incidents of a discreditable nature.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016226
The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be discharged due to unfitness and issued DD Form 258A (Undesirable Discharge Certificate). He had completed 1 year, 10 months, and 17 days of creditable active duty service and had 52 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086066C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that his discharge should be upgraded because he was accepted under lowered enlistment standards and he was diagnosed with an immature personality, passive aggressive type – chronic. After hearing testimony and reviewing the evidence of record, the ADRB again determined that the applicant was properly discharged and that there was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110008461
On 3 April 1971, the applicant's unit commander notified him that action was being initiated to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014541
His commander initiated separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unfitness, on 25 August 1971, citing his continuous misconduct, habitual shirking, and complete disregard for authority. The applicant was discharged from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 on 24 September 1971. This regulation prescribed that an undesirable discharge was normally issued unless the particular circumstances warranted a general or an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007609
The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to a general discharge. On 3 December 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unfitness and directed the applicant be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 9 December 1971, the applicant was accordingly discharged from the Army.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001995
On 30 December 1971 the applicant's immediate commander recommended that he be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability) for unfitness with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate due to shirking his duties repeatedly, numerous accounts of being disrespectful towards his chain of command, and being disobedient. The separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072980C070403
The applicant requests that the phrase "Drug Abuse" be deleted from Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) and that his DD Form 214 be corrected to show all awards and citations earned, including four bronze service stars (BSS) in lieu of one silver service star, and the Vietnam Gallantry Cross (sic). On 28 December 1971, the applicant was assigned to the United States Army Drug Abuser Holding Center, Vietnam...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020436
His military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army in the rank/grade of private (PV1)/E-1 on 5 April 1968, for 3 years. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), then in effect, provided that an honorable discharge was a separation with honor. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provided that a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002373
On 28 April 1969, the applicant's commander recommended the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness, based on the above misconduct. His record further shows that shortly after his request to extend his service in Vietnam he went AWOL. Records show the applicant was only age 17 when he enlisted.