| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Member | |
| Ms. Lana E. McGlynn | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that all of his problems were the fault of the Army for not sending him to Vietnam for a second tour.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
During the period 26 July 1966 to 28 May 1968, the applicant served on active duty in the Regular Army. His military occupational specialty was 36C (Lineman).
On 4 January 1967, he was administered nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent without leave (AWOL) for the period 22 to 31 December 1966. His punishment included a forfeiture of $40 pay per month for 2 months, extra duty and restriction.
He served in Vietnam from 4 April 1967 to 28 March 1968.
On 5 August 1967, he was administered NJP for being AWOL on 30 July 1967 and for disobeying a lawful order on 2 August 1967. His punishment included a reduction to pay grade E-2, a forfeiture of $15 pay and extra duty
On 29 May 1968, the applicant reenlisted in pay grade E-3 and with a waiver for lost time.
On 12 April 1969, he was administered NJP for being AWOL for the period 1 to
6 May 1969. His punishment included a reduction to pay grade E-3, a forfeiture of $20 pay, restriction and extra duty (suspended).
On 23 July 1969, he was convicted by a Special Court-martial of being AWOL for the period 6 to 20 June 1969. His sentence included restriction for 2 months and hard labor without confinement for 90 days.
On 18 August 1969, he was administered NJP for being AWOL for the period 31 July to 17 August 1969. His punishment included a reduction to pay grade E-3, a forfeiture of $41 pay, restriction and extra duty.
The unit commander preferred court-martial charges against him for further of AWOL for 237 days.
On 23 April 1970, the applicant voluntarily submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He acknowledged that he could receive a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge; that he was guilty of the charges against him; that he had consulted with legal counsel; and, that he had no desire to perform further military service.
On 20 May 1970, a physical examination cleared him for separation.
On 1 July 1970, the appropriate separation authority approved his request, directed his reduction to pay grade E-1, and that an Undesirable Discharge Certificate be issued.
On 28 September 1970, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, with a discharge UOTHC, under the above-cited regulation. His records indicate he had 3 years, 1 month and 20 days of creditable service and 355 days of lost time.
On 6 April 1976, the Army Discharge Review Board found his discharge to be proper and equitable and denied his request for upgrade.
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service), then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provided, in pertinent part, that a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could at any time after the charges had been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good
of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. At the time of the applicant’s separation, the regulation provided for the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.
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 chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial. Although he may now feel that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.
2. The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.
3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
4. The applicant's contention that he was not allowed to return to Vietnam is not shown and not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief. The Board notes the applicant began his misconduct during his first period of service and continued into the second period.
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
_LEM____ _TSK___ _FNE___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002073758 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020813 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072838C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: However, his records do show that on 12 May 1970, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020463
The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 14 September 1970, the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested a discharge under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service). The evidence of record shows the applicant received six Article 15s and three courts-martial during the period of service under review.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9508409C070209
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military and medical records show: On 19 January 1967, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA). His punishments included forfeitures, extra duties, restrictions, reductions in pay grade On 28 January 1966, he was honorably separated, with 2 years, 11 months and 15 days of creditable service and assigned to the Army Reserve. During the period 20 July-3 October 1971, he was AWOL and upon apprehension he was placed in confinement for the period 4-12...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090205C070212
He was sentenced to a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD), confinement at hard labor for 1 year, a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and a forfeiture of all pay and allowances. On 17 June 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) dispatched a letter to the applicant informing him that his discharge had been upgraded to a general discharge under the SDRP. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011694
On 17 August 1970, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for one specification of being AWOL during the period from on or about 12 June 1970 through 1 August 1970. In his request for discharge, the applicant acknowledged that he understood by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charges against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a discharge under other honorable conditions. The DD Form...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070016108
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge, and that his records be corrected to show that he was discharged in the pay grade of E-4. He states that he does not understand how he could be reduced to the pay grade of E-1 without being convicted by a court-martial. 360 144.0000/ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE 2.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010033
On 19 March 1967, the applicant was discharged with an honorable characterization of service for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. There is no evidence of record showing that the applicants discharge had ever been upgraded. __________ _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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072164C070403
APPLICANT STATES : That he was informed at his court-martial that his discharge would be upgraded after a certain number of years and it has not been done. On 21 August 1969, NJP was imposed against him for failure to obey a lawful order from the battalion commander and for failure to go to his place of duty. There is no evidence 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004099901C070208
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests that his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge, and by awarding him several months of back pay in the grade of E- 3. On 2 December 1985, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608641C070209
On the same day, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with a (UD). 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. ...