| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Gale J. Thomas | Analyst |
| Ms. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: The applicant states that he served honorably for over
5 years, and needs his discharge upgraded so he can obtain medical services. In support of his request the applicant submits copies of a May 1966 discharge certificate, a December 2001 medical note, and his August 1967 DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or discharge).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant initially enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 June 1960, for a period of 3 years. He was honorably discharged on 28 May 1963. His DD Form 214 indicates he had 2 years, 11 months and 22 days of creditable service.
On 20 January 1965, he reenlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years, in the pay grade of E-2.
On 7 June 1967, the applicant was convicted, pursuant to his pleas, by a general court-marital of three specifications of desertion from 25 April 1966 to 17 August 1966, 26 August 1966 to 29 December 1966, and from 29 January 1967 to
29 March 1967. He was also convicted of two specifications of escaping from lawful confinement on 26 August 1966 and 29 January 1967. He was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge and confinement at hard labor for 6 months.
His sentence was approved on 11 July 1967 and affirmed by the Board of Review of the Office of The Judge Advocate General on 31 July 1967.
On 18 August 1967, the unexecuted portion of his sentence of confinement at hard labor was remitted, and he was discharged under conditions other than honorable. His DD Form 214 indicates he had 1 year, 5 months and 15 days of creditable service and over 200 days of lost time.
The applicant submits a medical note from a psychologist dated 19 December 2001, which shows he is seeking medical services, the reason for his requested upgrade. He also submits a copy of an honorable discharge certificate dated
30 June 1966.
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. There is no evidence in the available records to explain the 30 June 1966 discharge certificate submitted by the applicant. It is unclear to the Board why he would have been issued a discharge certificate during a time when he was absent without leave.
3. 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 that requirement.
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
__RVO __ __BJE __ __KAH __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002068777 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021024 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070005804C071113
The applicant requests in effect, that his discharge be upgraded to a discharge under honorable conditions. The recommendation was based on the applicant’s three courts-martial conviction for being AWOL. After carefully evaluating the evidence submitted by the applicant and the evidence of record in this case, it is determined that the applicant’s discharge processing was conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and that the character of his service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002056C070205
The applicant provides a copy of his September 1964 and July 1967 DD Forms 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), a copy of his March 1966 DD form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), and a notarized statement attesting to his records being sealed, in support of his request. On 11 August 1967, the Army Clemency and Parole Board upgraded the applicant's Dishonorable Discharge to a Bad Conduct...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070013035
The applicant's record shows a second psychiatric evaluation was completed prior to administrative action under the provision of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unsuitability for continued military service on 2 June 1967. There is no evidence which indicates the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Evidence of record confirms the applicant was separated under unsuitability (character and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010228
On 22 December 1969, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. There is no evidence in the applicant's records that his discharge was upgraded or that he was granted clemency.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060321C070421
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. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062762C070421
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’s separation orders, dated 18 October 1968, show he was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 for conviction by a general court-martial. The Board also determined that the applicant’s record of service was not satisfactory; therefore, the applicant is not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069983C070402
The Board considered the following evidence: He believes that his PTSD symptoms are related to the rape incident in Vietnam. He had completed 11 months and 18 days of active military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015919
On 29 May 1968, the United States Army Board of Review, Office of The Judge Advocate General, reassessed the sentence and approved only so much as provided for a bad conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for 6 months, and forfeiture of $50 pay per month for 6 months. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with a bad conduct discharge on 16 August 1968 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-204 for conviction by a general court-martial. __William...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080044C070215
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 applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084633C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge from under other than honorable conditions. The Board reviewed the available records pertaining to the applicant's service, which included three special court-martial convictions for 68 days of being AWOL and one nonjudicial punishment for dereliction in the performance of his duties.