| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Curtis l. Greenway | Member | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his UD was unjust because he was suffering from a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and should have been medically discharged. In support of his application, he submits a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant entered the Army on 15 May 1967. He successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual training (AIT). He was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman). Upon completing training, he was assigned to the Republic of Vietnam for his first permanent duty station.
The record shows that the highest rank the applicant attained while serving on active duty was sergeant/E-5 and that he completed a tour in the RVN on
27 October 1968. He was then reassigned to Fort Benning, Georgia. During his active duty tenure he earned the following awards: National Defense Service Medal; Vietnam Service Medal with 4 bronze service stars; Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with 60 Device; Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation; and Combat Infantryman Badge.
The applicant’s disciplinary records includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code Of Military Justice (UCMJ) on 20 January 1969, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 28 December 1968 to 12 January 1969. In addition, the applicant had a further extensive history of AWOL related offenses that totaled 2194 days.
On 29 July 1975, a court-martial charge was preferred against him for the following two periods of AWOL: 18 September 1969 to 1 October 1969 and
9 October 1969 to 9 July 1975. The applicant, 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, voluntarily requested to be discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.
On 10 September 1975, 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 30 September 1975, the applicant was discharged accordingly. At the time of his discharge, he had completed 2 years, 3 months, and 12 days of creditable active military service and he had accrued a total of 2194 days of time lost due to AWOL.
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.
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 PTSD impaired his ability to serve in the Army and that he should have been medically discharged. However, it finds no evidence of record and the applicant has failed to provide independent evidence to support these claims.
2. The evidence of record shows the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense 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.
3. 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. Finally, the Board concludes that the applicant’s 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
__WTM__ __CLG__ __RKS___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001065662 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | 2002/04/02 |
| DATE BOARDED | 19750930 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200. chapter 10 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | In lieu of trial by court-martial |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 70.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011564C070208
On 23 August 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive an undesirable discharge. On 24 August 1971, the applicant was discharged accordingly. On 9 January 1975, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable and voted to deny the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
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 | 2002078154C070215
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 had The Board, is convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable; further, it has determined that the quality of his service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance expected of Army personnel; therefore, the applicant is not...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050012979
David K. Hassenritter | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 16 March 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) voted to upgrade the applicant's UD to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) based on his overall record of service; however, it concluded the reason for his discharge was proper and equitable. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board...
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 | CY2006 | 20060000999C070205
The applicant requests that his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge. On 17 September 1975, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge request and directed his reduction to the lowest enlisted grade and the issuance of an undesirable discharge. At the time of the applicant’s separation, the regulation provided for the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011054
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. He submitted a statement in his own behalf requesting a general, under honorable conditions discharge based on his previous good service, to include exemplary service in the Republic of Vietnam. The applicant's service medical records were not available for the Board's review.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019801
The applicant requests that his second discharge, an undesirable discharge (UD), be upgraded to honorable. c. A GD is a separation under honorable conditions issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory, but not so meritorious as to warrant an honorable discharge. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the offences for which he requested discharge and is appropriate for applicant's overall record of military service during his second enlistment.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060007407C070205
The applicant requests that the undesirable discharge of her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM), be upgraded to honorable. She also states that the FSM’s brother was just a cook and got his discharge changed and he did not see what the FSM saw in Vietnam. Chapter 10 of the 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 charges have been...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019420
In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged UOTHC and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a...