| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Ms. Jo Ann H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Member | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the President gave amnesty to Vietnam veterans with bad discharges and he never received a review under this program. He indicates that he has no evidence to support his request and only wants the truth told before a review board.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 17 April 1970, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. He successfully completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS)
72C (Switchboard Operator).
The applicant record shows that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private first class/E-3 and it documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition. However, it does show that he earned the following awards during his active duty tenure: Vietnam Service Medal with 2 bronze service stars; Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with 60 Device; and National Defense Service Medal.
The applicant’s service record does contain an extensive disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on the following two occasions for the offenses indicated: 25 January 1971, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 18 to 24 January 1971; and 4 June 1971, for being derelict in the performance of his duties as a switchboard operator.
On 27 December 1971, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for the following offenses: two specifications of being AWOL from his appointed place of duty, disobeying a lawful order issued by a superior
non-commissioned officer, discharging three rounds from a 45 caliber pistol, sleeping on his post during a yellow alert condition, wrongfully discharging a firearm with an intent to endanger a human life, communicating a threat to a commissioned officer, and twice communicating a threat to a warrant officer.
On 31 December 1971, after consulting with legal counsel and being advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum allowable punishment, and the possible effects of an UOTHC discharge, the applicant voluntarily requested to be discharged for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.
On 23 January 1972, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s discharge request and directed that he receive an UD and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.
On 1 February 1972, the applicant was discharged accordingly. At the time of his discharge, he had completed 1 year, 9 months, and 9 days of creditable active military service and he had accrued 6 days of time lost due to AWOL.
On 11 March 1988, the Army Discharge Review Board determined that the applicant’s UD was proper and equitable and denied his request for an upgrade to his discharge.
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. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he was never given a fair review of his discharge; however, it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was charged with the commission of multiple offenses punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge. After consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, he admitted guilt to the stipulated offenses under the UCMJ.
2. The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. It also notes that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally UOTHC and that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge.
3. Finally, the Board notes that the applicant chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial and it finds that his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.
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
__JHL__ _ _RJW__ __RTD DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001062519 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/02/26 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19720201 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200. . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | In Lieu of Trial By CM |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 70.000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070014505
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 February 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070014505 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 requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 8 March 1973, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be issued an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063085C070421
On 12 February 1969, he accepted NJP for being AWOL from 5 to 8 January 1969. While the FSM’s discharge proceedings are not contained in his records, it must be presumed that he requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial for his two plus years absence. The Board has carefully considered the FSM’s creditable service and the fact that he served in Vietnam.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077661C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. According to information recorded on OSA Form 62A Army Discharge Review Board Brief, dated 11 September 1973, the applicant requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of AR (Army Regulation) 635-200, chapter 10, on 26 March 1971. There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied for a hardship discharge to resolve his alleged problems -...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070210C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Appendix A of Army Regulation 635-5, in effect at the time, specifies the reasons for separation of members from active military service and the SPN to be assigned for these stated reasons. As requested by the applicant, the Board considered his good service during the enlistment under review and his Vietnam service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073818C070403
On 28 October 1971, subsequent to his completing his combat tour in the RVN, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for two periods of AWOL: from 5 June 1970 to 15 July 1970; and from 12 August 1970 to 15 October 1971. In support of his application, the applicant provides a letter confirming that he is being treated by a DVA staff psychologist for a PTSD that is based on his service in the RVN. In contrast to his record of misconduct, the applicant’s military service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088292C070403
The applicant requests, in effect that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). The separation document also verifies that at the time of his discharge, he had completed 1 year, 10 months, and 24 days of creditable active military service, and he had accrued 470 days of time lost due to AWOL. Therefore, the Board concludes that it would be appropriate and serve the interest of equity to upgrade his discharge to a general, under honorable conditions...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091698C070212
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: On 20 June 1969, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. As a result, it is determined that an upgrade to the applicant’s discharge would not be appropriate at this time. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____CLG__ __EL___ __LB__ DENY APPLICATION Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military Records INDEX |CASE ID |AR200.091698 | |SUFFIX | | |RECON |...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070011158C080407
The applicant submitted a statement supporting his discharge request in which he indicated that he had 1 year and 8 months of good time, had accepted two Article 15s and had 1 court- martial, and was then pending charges for being AWOL for 2 years and 4 months. The record further shows that the applicant voluntarily requested discharge in order to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in his receiving a punitive discharge, only after he had consulted with legal counsel and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065067C070421
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: He continuously served on active duty until 8 January 1971, at which time he was undesirably discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by court-martial. On 17 November 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge after determining that it had been proper and equitable.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004104796C070208
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 9 December 2004 DOCKET NUMBER: AR2004104796 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. Michael J. Flynn | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 10 November 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined that the...