| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Joyce A. Wright | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Stanley Kelley | Member | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his discharge should be upgraded based on the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP), often referred to as the “Carter Program.” In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show he was inducted on 18 November 1970, as a radio operator.
He was convicted by a special court-martial on 7 May 1971, of being disrespectful toward a commissioned officer on two occasions and for assault.
His sentence consisted of a reduction to pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of pay, and confinement at hard labor for 4 months.
Charges were preferred against the applicant on 1 September 1971, for being AWOL from 7 July to 31 August 1971 (56 days).
The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 29 September 1971, and was found qualified for separation.
The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records. However, his Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) proceedings shows that he was advised by counsel on 21 September 1971, and requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant submitted a statement, which indicated that he
had serious personal problems at the time of his induction and expressed an extremely derogatory opinion of the Army and its personnel. On 14 October 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request with the issuance of an undesirable discharge. On 20 October 1971, he was discharged under
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. He was furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He had a total of 7 months and 20 days of creditable service and had 99 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
The applicant applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge on 6 August 1981. The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and equitable and denied his request on 29 June 1982.
The applicant reapplied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge on 13 July 2001. However, the ADRB was precluded from accepting his application due to its statute of limitations. This Board accepted his application (DD Form 149), dated 13 July 2001.
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. Compelling reasons for upgrade under primary criteria were the award of a decoration or service medal, wounded in action, satisfactory completion of a tour of duty in Southeast Asia, receipt of a prior honorable discharge, or completion of satisfactory service of 24 months prior to discharge.
Reasons for granting an upgrade under secondary criteria include age, aptitude, education level, alcohol/drug problem, record of citizenship, etc.
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 his discharge should be upgraded based on the SDRP, often referred to as the “Carter Program.” However, the Board notes that the applicant did not serve in Vietnam, nor did he meet the reasons under the primary or secondary criteria under the SDRP.
2. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
3. The type of separation directed and the reasons for that separation appear to be appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.
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
__sk___ __iw____ __kh____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001060131 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011115 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19711020 |
| 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 | 20130000454
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. On 15 November 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered his request for an upgrade of his discharge to honorable under the DOD SDRP. This DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial and that his discharge was upgraded under the DOD SDRP to an under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058891C070421
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050016948C070206
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) which was upgraded to general under the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP), be upgraded to honorable. There is no evidence in the applicant's records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to show that his discharge was unjust.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000358
The applicant requests, in effect, affirmation of his general discharge under the provisions of the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP). In February 1979, the ADRB, having re-reviewed the applicant's case as required by Public Law 95-126, determined not to affirm the recharacterization of his discharge. _______ _ X______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017409
The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to a fully honorable discharge. There is no indication that the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002705C070206
The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge under the Department of Defense (DOD) Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) on 6 April 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. There is no evidence, and the applicant has provided none, to support his allegations or to show that he was diagnosed with PTSD while on AD...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001054764C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 17 April 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge. There is no evidence of record to show that this action was taken, nor is there any evidence that he made application for an upgrade of his discharge until his review and denial of upgrade by the ADRB on 17 April 1979.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120012298
In effect, he is requesting that the upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general, under honorable conditions discharge by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) be affirmed. On 14 July 1977, his discharge was upgraded to general, under honorable conditions under the DOD Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP). Therefore, in view of the applicant's overall record of service, it would be appropriate for the Board to concur with the findings and conclusions of the SDRP and the ADRB and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140020231
The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate at a time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021452
On 27 June 1969, the separation authority approved the FSM's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 29 December 1976, after careful consideration of the FSM's military records and all other available evidence the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined he was properly discharged and denied his request. Individuals could have their...