| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Robert J. McGowan | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Mr. William D. Barr | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: That he had honorable prior service and he has been a good citizen since his discharge. In support of his application, he provides a handwritten statement outlining his prior service and his awards and decorations; numerous training certificates from General Motors Corporation; a real estate training certificate; a certificate of appreciation from the City of Detroit (Michigan) for the "Knowledgeable Neighbor" program; a certificate of completion for the Dale Carnegie Course; a US Air Force certificate of training; a diploma from "Christ's Ambassadors" program of the Churches of Christ; a document appointing the applicant as a Notary Public in the State of Michigan; a certificate of recognition from the Dale Carnegie Course; a certificate of appreciation from the Detroit Recorder's Court; a certificate of accomplishment from H&R Block for basic income tax preparation; a certificate of completion of the slow pitch softball umpire camp; a letter of appreciation from the Mayor of Detroit for "Clean Sweep Day;" a letter of appreciation from the Mayor of Detroit for "Angel's Night;" a membership certificate in The American Legion."
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
With honorable prior service from 6 September 1967 through 16 April 1970, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army on 17 April 1970. At the time of his reenlistment, he was a Specialist Four (E-4), serving in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B, Light Weapons Infantryman.
On 4 March 1971, the applicant reported for his second tour of duty in Vietnam. He was assigned to A Troop, 7th Squadron, 17th Cavalry, as an infantryman. On 22 September 1971, court-martial charges were preferred against him for being absent without leave (AWOL), being in an off-limits area, not having a proper pass, violating currency regulation by possessing US dollars, possession of heroin, and sale of heroin. He was placed in military pre-trial confinement.
On 7 November 1971, having been properly advised by legal counsel, the applicant requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. His chain of command recommended approval of the applicant's request and issuance of a UD. On 26 January 1972, the approving authority approved the applicant's request and directed that he be separated with a UD.
On 16 February 1972, the applicant was separated with a UD under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had 1 year and 10 months of creditable service during the period under review and no lost time. He had total service of 4 years, 5 months, and 11 days of creditable service.
The applicant received three discharge reviews from the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB). On 13 May 1977, his records were reviewed under the Special Discharge Review Program; on 21 May 1979, they were reviewed under the aegis of uniform standards; and on 8 May 1980, they were reviewed based upon his application to that board. The ADRB, in each case, found that the applicant had been properly discharged and denied an upgrade.
Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of that regulation provided, in pertinent part, that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge might submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may have been submitted at any time after charges were preferred and must have included the individual's admission of guilt. Army policy stated that although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a UD was normally considered appropriate.
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 committed serious offenses involving the possession and sale of heroin during his second tour of duty in Vietnam. After court-martial charges were preferred against him, the applicant, after consulting with defense counsel, 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 Uniform Code of Military Justice.
2. The Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The Board also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge was normally under other than honorable conditions and that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge.
3. The Board considered the applicant’s entire record of service, as well as his many post-service accomplishments. In so doing, the Board found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.
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
__fne___ __bje___ __wdb___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002067886 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020910 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19720216 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A74.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008686C070205
The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable or general discharge. The applicant's military service records show that he was inducted into the Army for 24 months on 17 March 1971. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 28 March 1972.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080000203
On 18 July 1978, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be issued an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The applicant's contention that he fell into a state of depression is not supported by any evidence of record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9508021C070209
On 22 July 1974, after consulting with legal counsel, voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. On 29 August 1974, the appropriate authority approved his request, directed his reduction to pay grade E-1 and that a undesirable discharge (UD) be issued. The applicants separation was conducted in accordance with regulation in effect at the time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001240C070205
The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show award of the Purple Heart, the Army Commendation Medal, and a certificate of appreciation. He requests that items 5a (Grade, Rate or Rank) and 5b (Pay Grade) on his DD Form 214 be corrected to specialist four/pay grade E-4; and that item 8 (Place of Birth) on his DD Form 214 be corrected to show Detroit, Michigan. The applicant provides two applications; orders and an award certificate for the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022114
Following counseling, the applicant submitted a voluntary written request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. His record is void of any evidence and he did not provide any evidence which shows his discharge processing was in error. _______ _ X______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003389C070205
The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge contending that his discharge was unjust when considering that he had served over 6 years of honorable service without incident, to include a tour in Vietnam. On 29 August 1974 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100029840
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 30 March 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. There is no evidence of record and he has provided no evidence to show he sustained injuries during his period of active duty 4.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080373C070215
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 13 January 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board determined that the applicant’s discharge had been proper and equitable, and it voted to deny the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072697C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The appropriate authority (a major general) approved his request on 15 July 1980 and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against them or of a lesser included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110005829
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. However, no evidence shows he was discharged for drug abuse (paragraph 4-1a). _______ _ _X______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.