| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Stephanie Thompkins | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Member | |
| Ms. Terry L. Placek | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general or fully honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That his discharge was given after his tour of duty in Vietnam. The discharge was given traumatized 19-year-old man. He also states that his evidence is the recorded behavior pattern of a veteran after a tour overseas, to include Article 15s and the like. He wants to right a wrong done to a veteran for over 25 years.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army with a waiver of an unlawful offense, as a private, pay grade E-1, on 23 January 1967.
On 8 June 1967, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for misconduct. He was punished with forfeiture of pay.
On 9 June 1967, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for misconduct. He was punished with forfeiture of pay.
He attained the rank of pay grade E-3 on 3 August 1967.
He served overseas in Hawaii from 4 September to 5 December 1967.
On 19 October 1967, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for willfully disobeying an order and absence from his place of duty. His punishments included reduction to pay grade E-2, extra duty and restriction.
He served overseas in Vietnam from 6 December 1967 to 5 December 1968.
On 16 March and 13 July 1968, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for willfully disobeying a non-commissioned officer. His punishment included reduction to pay grades E-2 and E-1, forfeiture and restriction.
On 16 May 1969, he was charged before a Special Court-Martial of one specification of wrongful communication of a threat to injure and one specification of violation of a lawful general regulation by having in his possession live ammunition. He was found guilty and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 3 months, forfeiture of pay, and reduction to pay grade E-1.
On 13 September 1969, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for absence from formation and absence from work call. His punishment included forfeiture of pay and restriction.
He was reported absent without leave (AWOL) on 21 October 1969. On 18 November 1969, he was dropped from the rolls.
On 5 June 1971, he was returned to the United States Army Personnel Control Facility.
He was discharged on 4 August 1971, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, SPN 246, for the good of the service, and issued a UD discharge certificate. He was credited with 2 years, 11 months and 14 days net active service and lost time from 20 October 1969 to 22 January 1970, 4 February 1970 to 21 March 1971 and 5 April to 4 June 1971.
The discharge proceedings are not a part of his records.
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 a UD.
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. In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge to general under honorable conditions, or to fully honorable. He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.
2. The Board notes his contentions that his discharge was given after his tour in Vietnam and the evidence of record shows a behavior pattern after his return from overseas. However, it does not sufficiently support his request. The applicant received nonjudicial punishment before and after his overseas tours. He was punished under Article 15 twice for misconduct before his first overseas tour of duty. He was also punished three times before his departure to Vietnam. The Board concludes that the applicant’s contentions have not been substantiated and does not serve as mitigation in his case.
3. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military 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
_jhl____ __tlp___ _jns____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002068107 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020509 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | A70 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056168C070420
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 requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant was so discharged on 21 September 1974 with a total of 8 years, 1 month, and 1 day service and 16 days lost time.
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085465C070212
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 evidence of record shows that on 24 February 1972, the applicant consulted with counsel and submitted a request for discharge from the service. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a request for a change in the discharge or its characterization.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089598C070403
He states that he did have one honorable discharge prior to his undesirable discharge. There is no indication that the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board to have his discharge upgraded. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested or to excuse the applicant's failure to file this application with the ABCMR within its 3-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080000776
The following members, a quorum, were present: The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. The evidence of record confirms that prior to his record of AWOL-related misconduct,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014248
However, his records contain a duly-constituted DD Form 214 showing he was discharged on 19 July 1971 under other than honorable conditions for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial on under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 (Separation Program Number 246), with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085453C070212
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In essence, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: That prior to the period of enlistment under review, he served honorably in the Regular Army (RA) from 24 August 1967-24 April 1968. On 11 September 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709665
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 to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The record also contains...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709665C070209
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any) APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). The record also contains documented evidence that on 30 May 1974 the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of chapter 10 of AR 635-200. Chapter 10 of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9708814C070209
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any) APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge be upgraded based on his Vietnam service. On 21 August 1969 the applicant accepted his second NJP for failing to go to his prescribed place of duty, day guard duty. On 6 July 1971 the applicants unit commander advised the applicant of his intent to initiate...