| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Mr. George D. Paxson | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs | Member | |
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his bad conduct discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was AWOL (absent without leave) because of family problems and that he has "lived in shame" for over 30 years because of his discharge. He states that he lost his wife and son "for what [he] did" and spent 9 months in jail. He indicates that he has paid a "large price" for AWOL. He submits no evidence in support of his request.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He initially entered active duty in July 1964 and was discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment in September 1965. The applicant had 11 years of formal education and all but three of his initial aptitude test scores were above 100, including a GT (general technical) score of 106. He successfully completed training as a parachute rigger and had excellent conduct and efficiency ratings during initial assignments at Fort Bragg, North Carolina and Fort Rucker, Alabama.
In June 1967, while serving in pay grade E-4, he was assigned to Panama.
According to information contained in his file, he was permitted to go on leave after receiving a letter from his spouse that she was dissatisfied with the "unfit life they were having." The documents indicate that his spouse asked him to stay home and he was placed in an AWOL status in July 1967 when he failed to return to his duty station in Panama. While in an AWOL status the applicant and his spouse divorced.
On 31 January 1969 the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial pursuant to his pleas of AWOL from on or about 4 July 1967 until on or about
9 January 1969. His sentence included a bad conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement at hard labor for one year.
On 18 March 1969, the appellate military judges at the United States Army Board of Review, Office of The Judge Advocate General, affirmed his conviction.
A July 1969 petition for clemency was denied and on 22 September 1969 his bad conduct discharge was executed. At the time of his discharge he had approximately 35 months of creditable service and more than 700 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
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. Although the Board does note that the applicant had approximately 35 months of honorable service, his more than 700 days of lost time and extensive period of AWOL does not 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
___GDP_ __DSJ __ __REB__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001065552 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020326 |
| 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 | CY2001 | 2001063599C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. 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.
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 | CY2003 | 03098711C070212
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant states that he was granted a “clemency discharge” in 1976 and just recently received a copy of his Department of Defense Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty). On 16 October 1972 the applicant’s bad conduct discharge was executed and he was discharged under other than honorable conditions and issued a Bad Conduct Discharge Certificate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091011C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Documents associated with the applicant's discharge were not in records available to the Board. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate; however, in unusual circumstances, a general or honorable discharge was authorized, as directed by the convening authority.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084919C070212
Upon his return from Vietnam, he received an honorable discharge prior to his reenlistment. The applicant has provided no evidence to show that his discharge was unjust. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year statute of limitations prescribed by law.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062409C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Army Regulation 635-200 states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. Additionally, the Board notes that the applicant, when only 18/19 years old, successfully completed basic and advanced individual training and was promoted to pay grade E-2.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090872C070212
The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should commence on the date of final action by the ADRB. In May 1994 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066391C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Although there is no evidence, in available records, regarding disciplinary actions following this last period of AWOL, the applicant's records do indicate that he was confined from 8 December 1969 through 3 March 1970 when he was assigned as a duty soldier at Fort Riley, Kansas and promoted to pay grade E-2. Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, noted that a general...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064400C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. In June 1970 the applicant's commander initiated action to administratively separate the applicant from active duty, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (unfitness), and recommended the applicant receive an undesirable discharge. The applicant’s contention that he was suffering from PTSD at the time he departed AWOL is not supported by any evidence submitted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063408C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : That he had four years of good service. 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: