| 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 undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That “A 19 year old kid made a mistake. I wanted to vote in the 1968 election, but the Army wouldn’t let me. They said I was too young. My Dad was severely ill. I had applied for a compassionate reassignment. It was denied. Even the people that ran to Canada and burned their draft cards have been given amnesty. My God, it’s been over 30 years. This is my 4th request. Robert E. Lee wasn’t treated this bad. Everyone that I’ve ever heard about from this era has been reunited with the country in some way or another. The people that ran to Canada were given total amnesty. A lot of people sit around and laugh about how they faked illnesses to avoid the war. A 19-year old soldier made a mistake. I was a true blue American kid. I’ve never been in trouble in any way before this incident or afterwards. I’m old, sick and homeless! Let me die with dignity!”
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 18 July 1968, he was inducted into the Army. He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman). He was advanced to pay grade E-2, effective 18 November 1968.
During the period 25 December 1968 to 5 January 1969, he was placed on excess leave.
During the period 6 January 1969 to 21 February 1971, he was in absent without leave and desertion status.
On 11 March 1971, a physical examination cleared him for separation.
On 24 March 1971, the unit commander preferred court-martial charges against him for being absent without leave for the period 6 January 1969 to 21 February 1971.
On 29 March 1971, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He acknowledged that he could receive a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge; that he was guilty of the charges against him; that he had consulted with legal counsel; and, that he had no desire to perform further military service.
On 17 May 1971, the appropriate separation authority approved his request, directed his reduction to pay grade E-1 and that an undesirable discharge be issued.
On 28 May 1971, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, with an undesirable discharge, under the above-cited regulation. His separation document indicates he had 8 months and 20 days of creditable service, 782 days of lost time and 12 days of excess leave.
On 15 March 1985, the Army Discharge Review Board found his discharge to be proper and equitable and denied his request for upgrade.
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service), then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provided, in pertinent part, that a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could at any time after the charges had been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. At the time of the applicant’s separation, the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.
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. The applicant chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial. Although he may now feel that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.
2. The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.
3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
4. The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating to cause the granting of his request. There is no error or injustice.
5. 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
6. 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 | AR2002067809 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020416 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8705298
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. He was discharged on 8 October 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, having completed 2 years, 2 months and 15 days of service. The drug counselors and treating physicians have determined that his addiction problems probably stemmed from the time of his Vietnam duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130006332
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 November 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130006332 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040001629C070208
In an undated letter in the applicant's service personnel records, presumably submitted for consideration with his request for discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial, the applicant states, in pertinent part, "I asked for a leave to go home and get married but was refused. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge in its 15-year statute of limitations. Both the Joint Board and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009247
The applicant requests that his discharge be upgraded to honorable. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Board Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge during the 15 year statute of limitation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008899
His personal statement at that time said he detested the military, his conscience would not let him participate in any Army activity, and if he were returned to duty he would go AWOL again. A two-page personal statement to the effect that: (1) His work in Vietnam was very dangerous. He has lived in the same community for 35 years and been the public works director for over 20 years.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024677
On 11 August 1969, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 11-1a, as a result of court-martial with a dishonorable discharge. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time of the applicant's discharge, provided the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPN codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. b. Paragraph 3-7b...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608775C070209
He was in confinement from 7 August 1968 until 2 January 1969. On 16 September 1969 the applicants commanding officer recommended that the applicant be discharged for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the undesirable discharge that he might receive.
USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00516
I was in the Marine corps going on 6 years. If it was serious enough for me to get discharged, then she should have been also. I was discharged 6 days after being told I was receiving another than honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070014452
The applicant, the widow of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable or general discharge. Also in his request, the FSM understood that if his request for discharge was accepted, he would normally be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The Army Board for Correction of Military Records may elect to change the punishment and/or the characterization of service if...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089892C070403
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a more favorable discharge that will afford him benefits. There is no indication in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 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...