| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann Langston | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Member | |
| Mr. Eric N. Andersen | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to general.
APPLICANT STATES: That his discharge was based on one isolated incident in 11 months of service with no other adverse action. He contends that his post service civilian life has been impeccable and highly recognized. In support of his application, he submits a personal statement, dated 14 August 2001; four character reference letters; a Small Business Association of Michigan Certificate, dated 1 April 1989; and a Criminal Background Records Check, dated 24 August 2001.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant was inducted on 16 March 1970. He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training and was transferred to Vietnam for duty as an infantryman.
On 10 December 1970, charges were preferred against the applicant for disobeying a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer to board a helicopter to join his company in the field in Vietnam. Trial by special court-martial was recommended.
On 1 February 1971, 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, chapter 10. He indicated in his request that he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate; that he shall be deprived of many or all Army benefits; that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration; and that he may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law. He also acknowledged that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an undesirable discharge. The applicant elected to submit a statement in his own behalf; however, this statement was not contained in the available records.
The intermediate commanders recommended that the applicant’s request for discharge be approved and that he be furnished an undesirable discharge.
On 8 February 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued an undesirable discharge.
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 15 February 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He had served 11 months of total active service.
On 8 July 1977, the Special Discharge Review Program determined that the applicant did not meet the criteria of the program and denied relief.
On 5 September 1978, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade to honorable.
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.
The Special Discharge Review Program, 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.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, 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. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.
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’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 regulations.
2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
3. The Board considered the applicant’s contention that his discharge was based on one isolated incident in 11 months of service with no other adverse action. However, the Board determined that the seriousness of the offense (refusing a direct order to go to the field during the Vietnam Conflict) for which trial by special court-martial was recommended, is too serious to warrant relief in the form of a general discharge.
4. The Board considered the applicant’s contentions regarding his post service achievements and conduct. The Board also considered the character reference letters provided in support of his claim. However, good post service conduct alone is not a basis for upgrading his discharge.
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
JL______ MKP____ ENA____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001061796 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011204 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19710215 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, Chapter 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | For the good of the service |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0200 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110014904
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). He acknowledged he understood if the discharge request was approved, he may be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms 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 with his service characterized as...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110022752
The applicant states he was incarcerated in Vietnam and was seen by counsel who advised him to request a chapter 10 discharge. On 15 January 1975, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge and determined his discharge was both proper and equitable. At the time, he understood Soldiers who sought help for their drug problems would receive amnesty and was surprised to learn the applicant received a less than honorable discharge.
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 | CY2013 | 20130012223
The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. This form and his records contain no evidence the applicant performed any foreign service let alone service in Germany and the Republic of Vietnam. By regulation, a clemency discharge does not impact the underlying undesirable discharge received by the applicant.
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 | CY2010 | 20100023908
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. On 27 February 1972, 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140021261
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant states that he served honorably throughout his service and he volunteered for Vietnam. On 16 August 1971, after consulting with defense 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017227
On 29 March 1971, he went AWOL and returned to military control on 18 July 1971. On 16 October 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. On 15 December 1971, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076496C070215
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the deceased former service member’s (FSM’s) undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. 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. However, at the time of the applicant's...
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...