| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Melinda M. Darby | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to show he was honorably discharged.
APPLICANT STATES: That he served his country, got hooked on drugs in Nam, and made some bad mistakes after returning home. Further, he indicates he was only 21 years of age.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 9 June 1970, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years. He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 72B (Communications Center Operator). He was advanced to pay grade E-4, effective 15 July 1971.
During the period 6 March 1971 to 10 February 1972, he served in a unit in Vietnam.
On 26 May 1972, he was convicted by a Summary Court-Martial (SCM) of being absent without leave (AWOL) during the period 24 to 30 March and 14 April to 3 May 1972. His sentence included a reduction to pay grade E-3, forfeiture of $222 and extra duty for 14 days.
On 20 July 1972, he was convicted by a SCM of absenting himself from his place of duty on 26 May 1972 and for being AWOL during the period 6 to 9 July 1972. His sentence included a reduction to pay grade E-1 (suspended for 30 days), forfeiture of $192 and extra duty for 15 days.
On 8 November 1972, he was convicted by a Special Court-Martial of being disrespectful to a superior commissioned officer on 13 September 1972, of unlawfully striking a noncommissioned officer on 14 September 1972, and of stealing money from another soldier on 21 October 1972. His sentence included a reduction to pay grade E-1, confinement at hard labor (CHL) for 6 months, forfeiture of 2/3 of his pay ($190) for 6 months and a bad conduct discharge (BCD).
On 17 April 1973, he was placed on excess leave pending completion of the appellate review.
On 15 October 1973, the sentence of reduction to pay grade E-1, CHL for 6 months, forfeiture of $190 pay per month for 6 months and BCD was affirmed and ordered executed.
On 26 November 1973, he was discharged under conditions other than honorable under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, as a result of a court-martial conviction. His separation document indicates he had 2 years, 11 months and 1 day of creditable service, 197 days of lost time and 189 days of excess leave.
On 10 October 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board found his discharge proper and equitable and denied his request for upgrade.
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member'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 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. Trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses charged. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted.
2. The applicant’s service did not then meet and does not now meet the standards of honorable service as defined in Army Regulation 635-200. Therefore, the characterization of the applicant’s current discharge is appropriate considering all the facts of the case. There also is no apparent error, injustice, inequity, or change in policy or standards on which to base recharacterization of his discharge to honorable.
3. The Board acknowledges the applicant’s contentions of age and being a drug abuser; however he was 21 years of age and there is no mention of abuse of drugs in the available records.
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
_mmd____ _jtm____ _inw___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002067449 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | YYYYMMDD |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069277C070402
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: The applicant’s record shows that he was discharged on 7 November 1973, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness with a discharge UOTHC.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076664C070215
Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted. The applicant’s contentions regarding his discharge have been noted by the Board. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052481C070420
On 13 September 1972, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under other than honorable conditions with an UDC, under Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness. DETERMINATION : The subject application was not submitted within the time required. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested or to excuse the failure to file within the time prescribed by law.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051373C070420
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. On 12 November 1980, he was discharged, with a BCD, under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, based on his conviction by a court-martial. The applicant has...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071187C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. His DD Form 214 indicates that he had 3 years and 28 days of creditable service and 655 days of lost time. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070004205
The General Court-Martial sentenced the applicant to reduction in grade to private/pay grade E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and ordered him discharged from the service with a bad conduct discharge. In accordance with Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records is not empowered to set aside a conviction. Finally, a General Court- Martial convicted him of sodomy of a child and of a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062065C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072450C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Court of Military Appeals denied his petition for a Grant of Review on 5 July 1978. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088665C070403
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 9 December 2003 DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003088665 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. Records show the applicant should have discovered the error or injustice now under consideration on 26 March 1974; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired 3 years from that date.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056014C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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: An upgrade of a soldier’s discharge may be warranted if the Board determines that the discharge was in error or unjust.