| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Mark D. Manning | Member | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to show that he was honorably discharged because he feels he deserves another chance to correct his mistakes.
APPLICANT STATES: He provides three letters of support; a copy of General Court-Martial Order 42, US Army Hawaii, dated 31 October 1969; and, four pages of testimony by himself and another soldier. He indicates he was only 22 years of age and a very good soldier.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 3 August 1967, he was inducted into the Army. He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).
During the period 7 January 1968 through 12 May 1969, he served in Vietnam.
On 21 September 1968, while in Vietnam, he was convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of being absent without leave (AWOL) for the period 12 June through 20 August 1968. His sentence included confinement at hard labor (CHL) for 6 months (suspended), forfeiture of $68 pay per month for 6 months, and reduction to pay grade E-1.
On 16 December 1968, while in Vietnam, he was convicted by a SPCM of failure to obey a lawful order on 10 October 1968. His sentence included CHL for 6 months, forfeiture of $73 pay per month for 6 months, and reduction to pay grade E-1.
On 21 April 1969, he was convicted by a general court-martial of disobeying a lawful command from a superior officer on 23 January 1969, to go to the field. His approved sentence included a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD), forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and CHL for 15 months. In the mitigation of his sentence, his age was considered.
On 29 January 1970, the US Army Court of Military Review affirmed the findings and the sentence.
On 2 April 1970, a physical examination cleared the applicant for discharge.
On 6 April 1970, he was discharged with a BCD under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, based on the result of a court-martial conviction. His separation document indicates he had 1 year, 1 month, and 25 days of creditable service and 557 days of lost time.
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.
The three letters of character reference provided by the applicant are from family members and friends. They attest to his good and pleasant personality, a hard worker, honest, sincere, and willing to help anyone when necessary.
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. Trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses charged. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted.
2. 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.
3. The character reference letters indicate that the applicant’s post-service conduct is admirable; however, these letters do not serve as a sufficient basis to upgrade his discharge that was the direct result of numerous acts of indiscipline.
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
_sac____ _mdm____ _rks____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001062065 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011213 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076664C070215
Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted. The applicant’s contentions regarding his discharge have been noted by the Board. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064948C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his general court-martial (GCM) conviction be set aside and his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was adjudged guilty by a court-martial and that the convening authority approved the sentence.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056135C070420
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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. On 24 March 1970, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04439-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 February 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. During the period 15 to 26 May 1968, while still in Vietnam, you were in a UA status.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076276C070215
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. He stated that had he known what a discharge under other than honorable conditions would mean to his future, then he would never have accepted the discharge and would have served his sentence in confinement instead. On 12 June 1969, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-212,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062564C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Although the documentation is not in the available records, evidence shows that after the commander preferred charges for AWOL, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083527C070212
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. APPLICANT STATES : That his overall combat service was not given consideration at the time of his discharge. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067909C070402
On 23 December 1970, his unit commander preferred court-martial charges against the applicant for being AWOL for the period 28 April to 29 July 1970 and for escaping from lawful confinement on 26 August 1970. 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: It was verified that the family conditions remained the same as when he enlisted 3 months earlier,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014029
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 May 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060014029 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant states, in effect, that he was wrongly accused of being absent without leave (AWOL) during the period 19 June 1968 to 19 September 1968 which resulted in a special court-martial conviction and reduction from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072164C070403
APPLICANT STATES : That he was informed at his court-martial that his discharge would be upgraded after a certain number of years and it has not been done. On 21 August 1969, NJP was imposed against him for failure to obey a lawful order from the battalion commander and for failure to go to his place of duty. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of...