| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to one issued under honorable conditions.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that it has been over 30 years since he was discharged with a UD; that he has lived with this stigma too long; and that he believes he has shown his country and government that he is an asset and deserves a second chance. He also believes his discharge to be inequitable because it was based on incidents that occurred over a short period of time. He states that he has been a model citizen since discharge and that he has retired from the State of Washington Department of Corrections. He provides no evidence in support of his request.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years on 25 June 1969 and for training in Army Career Group 11/Armor. Following completion of all required training, the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11D, Armor Reconnaissance Specialist, and was assigned to Germany. The applicant served in Germany from 13 December 1969 to 28 July 1970.
Following his tour in Germany, the applicant was assigned to the Republic of Vietnam. However, on 6 September 1970, prior to reporting to Vietnam, the applicant departed his unit absent without leave (AWOL) and remained absent until 8 January 1971. The applicant was charged with AWOL and was convicted by a special court-martial on 20 January 1971. He was sentenced to 5 months confinement at hard labor (CHL) (CHL in excess of 30 days suspended for 5 months) and reduction to private/E-1. The sentenced was approved on 26 January 1971. After serving 25 days, the applicant was released from confinement and was sent to Vietnam. He served there from 20 February 1971 to 15 August 1971.
On 5 May 1971, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishments (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for disobeying a lawful order of a noncommissioned officer. His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $50.00 pay for one month and 14 days of extra duty.
On 10 June 1971, the applicant accepted an NJP for being absent from his place of duty. His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $50.00 pay for one month.
On 12 June 1971, the applicant accepted an NJP for disobeying a lawful command of a superior commissioned officer. His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $44.00 pay for one month, reduction to private first class/E-3, and 14 days of extra duty.
On 24 June 1971, the applicant was charged with one specification of leaving his post before he was relieved from duty, two specifications of AWOL for failing to go to his appointed place of duty, and two specifications of disobeying orders by not reporting to guard duty. The applicant requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial; however, the request is not in his Official Military Personnel File. The chain of command recommended approval.
On 30 July 1971, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request with a UD. Accordingly, on 18 August 1971, the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 7 months, and 24 days of creditable military service and accruing 150 days of lost time.
On 24 June 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his UD to a GD.
On 15 August 1977, the ADRB reviewed the applicant’s records under the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) and found that the applicant did not meet the requirements for upgrade of his discharge under the SDRP.
On 25 June 1985, the ADRB denied the applicant’s appeal for an upgrade of his UD.
On 9 February 1996, the applicant applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge; however, he was beyond the 15-year statute of limitations and was referred to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for relief.
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. 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.
2. The applicant requests a discharge upgrade based upon his successful transition to civilian life and his good post-service conduct. Unfortunately, he provides no evidence in support of his request. He provides no statements from friends, family, or employees; he provides no statements from clergy or his local police department attesting to his character.
3. The Board noted that the applicant’s chain of command tried to assist him in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of nonjudicial and judicial punishment; however, the applicant failed to respond appropriately.
4. The Board carefully reviewed all of the applicant’s faithful and honorable service as well as his misconduct. The Board determined that, even though the applicant’s misconduct happened in a short span of time, these numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant’s service below that meriting a general or fully honorable discharge.
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
_aao____ __mhm__ ___kah__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001061470 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020129 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19710818 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, c10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | In lieu of trial by court-martial |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | Director |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.9405 |
| 2. | 144.7100 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011833
The SDRP stipulated that all former service members who received UDs (the equivalent now being a discharge under other than honorable conditions) or general discharges during the period 4 August 1964 through 28 March 1973 were eligible for review under the SDRP. The SDRP also provided secondary criteria that allowed the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to upgrade a discharge if the board believed such upgrade was appropriate based on all the circumstances of a particular case, and on the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090205C070212
He was sentenced to a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD), confinement at hard labor for 1 year, a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and a forfeiture of all pay and allowances. On 17 June 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) dispatched a letter to the applicant informing him that his discharge had been upgraded to a general discharge under the SDRP. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080004963
The applicant's Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows he served in the RVN for 4 months between June and September 1969. On 24 February 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) voted to upgrade the applicant's discharge to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD), under the provisions of the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) and Presidential Proclamation 4313. Notwithstanding the initial upgrade of his discharge under the SDRP based on his service in the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014865
The applicant requests, in effect, that the upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD) to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD), under the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) be affirmed. On 13 July 1972, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), after careful consideration of the applicant's military records and all other available evidence, determined that he had been properly and equitably discharged and it voted to deny his request for a change to the characterization of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9708894
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 | CY1997 | 9708894C070209
On 30 March 1970 while in Vietnam the applicant accepted a second NJP for sleeping in his bed while being absent from his guard post. The DD Form 214 documents that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. While the Board is empathetic with the applicants medical problems, the evidence of record shows the applicant was in good health at the time of his discharge, and he was aware of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004101091C070208
The applicant's request for administrative discharge from the Army, in lieu of court martial, is not on file in the applicant's service personnel records for review. This review would establish the former service member’s right to request that the VA grant favorable action on a request for veteran benefits. As noted by the evidence of record, the applicant's request for administrative discharge from the Army, in lieu of court martial, is not on file in the applicant's service personnel...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020638
Counsel requests, in effect, reconsideration of his request to affirm his upgraded discharge by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 23 June 1977, under the Department of Defense (DOD) Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) so he can receive veterans' benefits. In the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, this program, known as the DOD SDRP, required that a discharge upgrade to either honorable or general be issued in the case of any individual who had either completed a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018510
On 2 June 1971, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for 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. The applicant was 19 years old when he was inducted and he completed his training. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110015529
The applicant requests his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. The SDRP stipulated that all former service members who received undesirable discharges (UDs) (the equivalent now being a discharge under other than honorable conditions) or general discharges during the period 4 August 1964 through 28 March 1973 were eligible for review under the SDRP. Evidence of record shows he had two periods of AWOL: 13 July 1971 to 24 August 1971 for which he received an Article 15 and 7 September...