| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he now suffers from undifferentiated schizophrenia and that he has been treated for this illness since 1978. He further states that after years of seeking treatment he is now able to initiate the process that will correct the injustice of his discharge. In support of his application, he submits a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214), associated letters describing his mental condition and prescribed medication, and a copy of his birth certificate from the state of Georgia.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 14 February 1968, he entered the Army for 3 years and he was trained in and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 64B (Light Vehicle Driver). 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.
The applicant’s records shows that during his active duty tenure he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal: Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with 60 Device and Marksman Marksmanship Badge (M-16 & M-14 Rifle). There are no other acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition recorded in his record and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was specialist/ E-4.
The applicant’s record shows an extensive disciplinary history that includes his conviction by a special court-martial on 13 November 1968 of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 2 August to 26 August 1968 and from 8 September to 13 November 1968. In addition, during his active duty tenure he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on the following 4 separate occasions for the offenses indicated: 6 February 1969, for being AWOL on 5 February 1969 and for breaking curfew; 7 October 1969, for being AWOL from 5 October through
6 October 1969; 4 November 1969, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty; and 2 December 1969, for possession of an illegal weapon.
The applicant went AWOL on 3 September 1970 and returned to military control on 10 November 1970, which resulted in his being processed for discharge. The applicant’s discharge packet, containing the specific facts and circumstances pertaining to his discharge processing, is missing from his military records. However, there is a properly constituted DD Form 214 on file that contains the authority, reason, and characterization of the applicant’s discharge.
The DD Form 214 on file confirms that the applicant was undesirably discharged administratively on 8 January 1971, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by court-martial. At the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 2 years, 6 months, and
9 days of creditable active military service and he had accrued a total of
136 days of lost time due to AWOL.
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 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 applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the Army. However, the Board notes that his record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 that contains the authority and reason for his separation. Therefore, the Board presumes government regularity in the discharge process.
2. The separation document confirms that the applicant was discharged for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by court-martial. Procedurally, this would have required him to consult with legal counsel in order to be advised of the basis for the contemplated court-martial, the rights available to him, and the effects of an UD. In addition, he would have been required to admit guilt to the stipulated offense(s) under the UCMJ and to voluntarily request, in writing, an administrative discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.
3. As requested by the applicant, the Board considered the applicant’s contention that his UD should be upgraded to a GD based upon his current medical condition. However, it concludes that this factor alone does not mitigate his misconduct sufficiently to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
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
__FNE___ __BJE__ __REB___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001065067 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/04/18 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19710108 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, Chapter 10 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | In Lieu of trial by CM |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065662C070421
There is no indication in the record that the applicant suffered a medically disabling condition prior to discharge and on 24 October 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board determined the applicant’s discharge had been proper and equitable and denied his request for an upgrade to his discharge. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058690C070421
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. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
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 | CY2001 | 2001057253C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The FSM submitted a request for an upgrade of his discharge to the Army Discharge Review Board and it was denied on 19 May 1980. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001057253SUFFIXRECONYYYYMMDDDATE BOARDED2001/07/26TYPE OF DISCHARGE( UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE19691212DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR 635-200, chapter 10. .
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065635C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074310C070403
He failed to report for his movement date and was declared AWOL. On 1 May 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board determined that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable, and it denied his request for an upgrade to his discharge. 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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061001C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 4 June 1969, after consulting with legal counsel and being advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial for an offense or offenses punishable by a bad conduct discharge, the rights available to him, and the effects of an UD, the applicant voluntarily elected to request a discharge under the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063300C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR200106330SUFFIXRECONYYYYMMDDDATE BOARDED2002/03/14TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UD)DATE OF DISCHARGE19700403DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200, Chapter 10 .
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074760C070403
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In essence, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be reviewed and upgraded to an honorable 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: There is no available evidence of record and the applicant provides none to show that he had any medical condition which indicates he was unfit for separation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100437C070208
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 30 March 1982, the ADRB determined that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable and it voted to deny the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu of court-martial.