| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Ms. Jennifer L. Prater | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member | ||
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: That his brother was shot in Vietnam while he was there. He was not allowed to see him so he went absent without leave (AWOL) to do so. He was just a kid and very scared. He has lived as a law-abiding citizen since his separation. He provides his Report of Transfer or Discharge, DD Form 214, and related Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 215, as supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was born on 14 September 1950. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 September 1968. He completed basic combat training, advanced individual training, and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).
On 20 November 1968, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.
The applicant arrived in Vietnam and was assigned to Company B, 4th Battalion, 47th Infantry, 9th Infantry Division on 22 March 1969.
On 28 April 1969, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for missing unit movement.
On 2 May 1969, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of missing, through design, unit movement.
On 8 May 1969, the applicant’s commander recommended he be barred from reenlistment. The applicant elected to submit a rebuttal statement. He stated that he could not do the field work because he got very tired and got headaches and felt he could do a better job somewhere that he did not have to do much walking. He was weak and nervous because of what happened to his brother. The bar was approved on 19 May 1969.
On 8 June 1969, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for disobeying a lawful order to report to the Orderly Room.
On 2 July 1969, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of two specifications of missing unit movement and one specification of willfully disobeying a lawful command.
On 2 August 1969, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of willfully disobeying a lawful command from his superior noncommissioned officer.
On 16 September 1969, the applicant completed a psychiatric evaluation. He was diagnosed as having an immature personality. He was found to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.
Around October 1969, the applicant’s company commander initiated separation action on him under Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness. The commander cited the applicant’s habits and traits of character manifested by habitual shirking of duty and frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities.
The applicant was advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action. He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived personal appearance before such a board, elected not to make a statement on his behalf, and waived representation by counsel.
On 20 October 1969, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
On 31 October 1969, the applicant completed a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation.
On 31 October 1969, the applicant was discharged, with an undesirable discharge, under other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness. He had completed 1 year, 1 month, and 8 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, sexual perversion, drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit-forming drugs or marijuana, an established pattern for shirking, an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts or failure to contribute adequate support to dependents, were subject to separation for unfitness. Such action would be taken when it was clearly established that despite attempts to rehabilitate or develop him as a satisfactory soldier further effort was unlikely to succeed.
On 6 January 1978, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded 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:
1. 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.
2. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. The Board notes the applicant was 18 years old at the time he enlisted; however, many other young soldiers have been able to successfully complete their period of service even during periods of war. There is no evidence of record to show the applicant was arbitrarily denied the opportunity to visit his brother or that he went AWOL in order to visit his brother. It is also noted that the applicant’s record of disciplinary infractions began before he went to Vietnam. Considering his record of disciplinary actions, the characterization of his discharge as undesirable, under other than honorable conditions was appropriate.
3. The Board is cognizant of the applicant’s good conduct since his discharge but that factor does not warrant upgrading his discharge.
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
JLP AAO RKS DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002069969 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/06/04 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1969/10/31 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-212 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A51.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004592
On 7 October 1970, the applicant's unit commander recommended that he be required to appear before a board of officers to consider his separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. There were no medical records available to the Board and the applicant provided no medical records. Additionally, as stated in Army Regulation 635-212, when separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010861
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Joint Service Stockade letter, subject: Separation Under Army Regulation 635-212, dated 17 December 1969, shows the correctional officer recommended that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness and that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Headquarters, U.S. Army Personnel Center, Oakland, CA, Special Orders Number 19, dated 19 January...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000560
On 14 December 1978 he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge to fully honorable. After reviewing all of the available evidence in his case, the ADRB determined that his discharge was both proper and equitable under the circumstances and voted unanimously to deny his request on 30 May 1980. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130006513
On 17 April 1970, the applicant's commanding officer counseled him regarding the proposed action to separate him from the U.S. Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations Discharge Unfitness and Unsuitability). On 16 February 1971 after carefully considering the evidence before it, a board of officers found the applicant undesirable for further retention in the military because of his extensive record of discreditable incidents which resulted in judicial...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072387C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 21 October 1971, the applicant’s commander notified him of recommended separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness. On 15 March 1972, the separation authority approved the board’s recommen-dation and directed that he be discharged with a UD, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002719
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge, under the provisions of the Department of Defense (DOD) Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP), be affirmed and further upgraded to an honorable discharge. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. The ADRB upgraded his under other than honorable conditions discharge to a general discharge, under honorable conditions...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130022139
On 17 January 1970, the applicant's immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability) by reason of unfitness. The applicant provides: a. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and the character of service is commensurate with his overall record of military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018918
On 30 March 1972, the applicant's immediate commander recommended he appear before a board of officers under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability) for the purpose of determining whether he should be discharged by reason of unfitness. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 12 May 1972. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law and regulations applicable at the time and the character of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004271
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant, the widow of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests upgrade of the FSM's undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. There is no evidence the FSM appealed to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070972C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. In September 1977 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge.