| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that all he was trying to do was help his family. He notes that he “got a job and worked, each time [he] was AWOL [absent without leave].” He just wants someone to “review the records” and indicates that he has had a “clean and good life, no felonies, or nothing.” He submits no evidence in support of his request.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted and entered active duty for a period of 3 years on 14 July 1969. He was 20 years old at the time, with a GT (general technical) score of 111 and 11 years of formal education. He enlisted for training in the administrative field.
He successfully completed basic training, received “excellent” conduct and efficiency ratings, and in September 1969 was assigned to Fort Knox, Kentucky for advanced individual training.
On 10 October 1969 the applicant commenced a series of AWOL periods, totaling more than 700 days, which ultimately resulted in his conviction by a general court-martial. His sentence included confinement at hard labor for 9 months, forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for 9 months, and a dishonorable discharge. During the appellate process the dishonorable discharge portion of the court-martial sentence was modified to a bad conduct discharge.
As part of his petition for clemency, while in confinement, the applicant indicated that he had one record of non-judicial punishment and one “unfavorable former CO [commanding officer] report.” It indicated that at age 17 he married a 16 year old girl and they had a child. At the time of the clemency petition they were “contemplating” divorce. The applicant had “plans to marry another girl who had a child by him.” He stated that he “went AWOL because of family’s financial problems.” His clemency petition was denied.
The bad conduct discharge was executed on 7 August 1972. At the time the discharge was executed the applicant had completed 3 months and 5 days of active Federal service with nearly 1000 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
The Table of Maximum Punishment, in effect at the time, indicates that the applicant could have received a dishonorable discharge, up to 3 years confinement, and total forfeiture of pay and allowances.
Army Regulation 635-200 states that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. It represents a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
Army Regulation 635-200 states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’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 clearly inappropriate.
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 separation was executed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. There is no evidence of any error.
2. Additionally, the Board notes that the applicant had less than 6 months of creditable service and, while he received “excellent” ratings during basic training, his conduct following basic training was not so meritorious so as to warrant an upgrade of his discharge based on equity. The applicant has submitted no evidence which would serve as a basis to upgrade his discharge.
3. 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 that requirement.
4. 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
__FNE __ __TSK __ __JTM __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001063599 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010110 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03099549C070212
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. In submitting his recommendation for administrative separation, the applicant’s commander noted the applicant’s service in Vietnam and his award of the Army Commendation Medal but recommended that the applicant be discharged and issued an undesirable discharge certificate, notwithstanding that information. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002904
His records contain his DA Form 24 (Service Record). He was given a dishonorable discharge pursuant to a general court-martial empowered to adjudge such a discharge. His conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and his discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074203C070403
The applicant requests upgrade of the discharge of her late husband, the deceased former service member (FSM). 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 be issued in the case of any individual who had either completed a normal tour of duty in Southeast Asia, been wounded in action, been awarded a military decoration other than a service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008829
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 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 normal tour of duty in Southeast Asia, been wounded in action, been awarded a military decoration other than a service medal, had received an honorable discharge from a previous...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001775C070205
Counsel requests, in effect, that the Board consider the applicant’s request based on the available evidence of record. However, his records do contain a duly constituted report of separation (DD Form 214), signed by the applicant, which shows that he was discharged at Fort Campbell on 16 July 1969, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. On 17 June 1974 and 12 August 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010621
The applicant requests correction of his record to: * expunge his Special Court-Martial (SPCM) * upgrade his Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) to an honorable discharge * amend item 27 (Reenlistment (RE) Code) of his DD Form 214 to show he received an RE Code of "1" or "3" 2. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged with a BCD on 28 June 1983, in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-1 as a result of court-martial, and that he received...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063893C070421
He stated that he was requesting the discharge because his spouse: Her mother has stated my wife can stay there only long enough in order for me to apply for this discharge and get home to take care of my wife. On 13 May 1968 the applicant's request for hardship discharge was denied.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080009197
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 25 June 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed he be issued an Undesirable Discharge. However, at the time of separation, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017590
The applicant requests, in effect, upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD) to a general under honorable conditions discharge (GD). The applicant provides: * The first page of a multi-page letter, dated 10 November 1970, requesting 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 * A 27 November 1970 partial memorandum of legal review of his request for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070009272
On 18 December 1978, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be issued a discharge under other than honorable conditions. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. At the time of his discharge the applicant stated his reasons for going AWOL had to do with his dislike for the United States Army because of the way he was treated.