| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deyon D. Battle | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Paula Mokulis | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable or a general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That he successfully completed one period of enlistment and that he was allowed to reenlist while he was in Vietnam. He states that he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) while he was in Vietnam and that he later found out that orders were never published awarding him ARCOM. He states that he was scrutinized by his chain of command and was ordered not to wear the ARCOM because there was no record of it ever being awarded to him. He further states that his feelings towards the Army changed; therefore, he decided not to report to Germany and to absent himself without leave (AWOL). He stated that he was a good soldier up until he went AWOL. He admits to receiving nonjudicial punishment (NJP); however, he states that he was young and that he learned from his experience. He states that he believes that the Army’s decision was correct; nevertheless, he has been punished enough and he deserves to have his discharge upgraded. He concludes by stating that since his discharge he has attempted to be a good citizen, maintain steady employment, and contribute to his country by paying his fair share of taxes.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 29 June 1965, he enlisted in the Army in Charlotte, North Carolina, for 4 years, in the pay grade of E-1. He successfully completed his training as a pioneer.
On 11 December 1965, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to repair at his appointed place of duty. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.
On 20 April 1966, he was transferred to the Republic of Vietnam were he served for 18 months.
He was honorably discharged on 8 December 1967, for the purpose of immediate reenlistment and on 9 December 1967, he reenlisted for 6 years in the pay grade of E-4.
The applicant’s conduct and efficiency ratings were excellent; however, he went AWOL on 15 July 1969 and he remained AWOL until he surrendered to military authorities on 7 June 1973. At the time of his surrender, he stated that he went AWOL because he did not want to report to Germany and because of a misunderstanding regarding his orders and records.
Charges were preferred against him on 8 June 1973, for being AWOL from 15 July 1969 until 7 June 73. After consulting with counsel, he waived his rights and he submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge on 21 June 1973. Accordingly, on 22 June 1973, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had completed 4 years and 29 days of total active service and he had almost 4 years of lost time due to AWOL. He was furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
On 2 March 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
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 an undesirable 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. 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.
2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
3. The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions; however they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to his extensive absence and his overall record of service.
4. The applicant chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial and a possible felony conviction. Although he may now feel that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.
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
___ls ___ ___pm __ __dh____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002070356 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/08/06 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1973/06/22 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, CH 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | 689 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 708 | 144.7100 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076783C070215
The applicant was honorably released from active duty on 23 June 1971 after completing 2 years of creditable active service with no lost time. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. As a prior service member, he should have been aware that there were administrative remedies he could have sought, such as requesting a hardship discharge, to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013854
His DD Form 214 for this period of service shows he completed 9 months and 10 days of active service. He was 18 years and 4 months of age at the time. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 in lieu of trial by a court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001425
On 29 January 1974, the applicant consulted with counsel and requested a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations). The Board considered the applicants reenlistment occurred after he served in Vietnam. The applicants record shows he received nonjudicial punishment a special court-martial conviction, and 99 days of lost time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087490C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable or a general discharge. APPLICANT STATES : That he went absent without leave (AWOL) for pertinent reasons.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004059
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states, in effect, that his discharge should be upgraded because he had a previous honorable discharge and he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal. He also requested that his good conduct in Vietnam be considered in upgrading his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007209
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. d. Headquarters, Fort Meade, MD Special Orders Number 148, issued on 26 July 1973, ordered his discharge under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 in lieu of a court-martial with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions, effective 30 July 1973. e. A duly-constituted DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 30 July 1973 under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071810C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a more favorable discharge. The commanding general approved his request on 3 August 1973 and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017172
The applicant states, in effect, that he was convicted of a felony 5 weeks after he enlisted in the Army and that he was in the county jail for 1 year. On 6 February 1976, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004107014C070208
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable or a general discharge. It was not until he surrendered to military authorities that he indicated that he went AWOL because he had to take care of his family as a result of his wife deserting him and his children and there is no evidence in the available records that shows that he sought help from his superiors prior to going AWOL.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007030
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). He stated that considering the applicant's Vietnam service and the absence of any civilian offenses, he requested the applicant receives the appropriate discharge. Despite a court-martial conviction and two instances of Article 15 for being AWOL, the applicant went AWOL a third time.