| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. G. E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Member | |
| Mr. Ronald J. Weaver | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, he entered the service under a two-year obligated service "Buddy" program, which was not honored. When he attempted to have this honored and it was denied, he "acted out in order to force the issue." He would like to have his discharge upgraded so that his father will be proud of him.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show that:
On 14 January 1971, the applicant's parents signed a DD Form 373 (Consent, Declaration of Parent or Legal Guardian) for the applicant to enlist for three years as an underage inductee. The only enlistment option of record was for training, if otherwise qualified, in the military occupation specialty (MOS) career group 11, Armor Crewman. His enlistment contract (DD Form 4) again lists a three-year obligation with the only enlistment option as MOS training.
The applicant entered active duty on 16 February 1971, at age 17. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training without incident. He was assigned to Germany as an 11E (truck driver).
The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on seven occasions with a total of 13 specifications: failure to go to his appointed place of duty (5 times); violation of a general order (5 times); being absent without leave (AWOL) (2 times); and dereliction of duty by sleeping on duty.
On 26 July 1972, a bar to reenlistment was initiated citing four of his NJPs, and repeated counseling for being derelict in the performance of his duties.
The applicant was found guilty by a summary court-martial of two periods of AWOL, 2 through 5 November 1972 and 13 through 30 November 1972.
On 28 March 1973, his command commenced discharge proceedings under Army Regulation 635-200, for unsuitability.
The applicant acknowledged and waived his rights to have his case reviewed by a board of officers, to submit statements on his own behalf, and to be represented by counsel. He acknowledged that he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received a general discharge.
The discharge authority waived the rehabilitation requirement and approved the applicant's discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13b(3) for unsuitability with the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.
The applicant was discharged on 18 May 1973 with a characterization of under honorable conditions. He had 2 years, 3 months and 3 days of creditable service.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the policy and prescribes the procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13, in effect at that time, applied to separation for unfitness and unsuitability. At that time, paragraph 13-5b(3) provided for the separation of individuals whose record evidenced apathy (lack of appropriate interest), defective attitudes, and an inability to expend effort constructively.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
2. There is no evidence to support the applicant's contention that he was guaranteed any "buddy system” option or that his obligated service was for anything other than the standard three year active duty obligation.
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 this 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.
| CASE ID | AR2002074328 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030204 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19730518 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 CH 13 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003142
The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), dated 4 April 1972, in support of his request. On 22 March 1972, the applicant's battalion commander also recommended approval of the applicant's elimination from the Army with a General Discharge Certificate. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and the character of the discharge is commensurate with the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063913C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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: Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001063913SUFFIXRECONN/ADATE BOARDED20020411TYPE OF DISCHARGE(GD)DATE OF DISCHARGE19730410DISCHARGE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110015697
When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. The evidence shows he served his country honorably from 24 October 1969 to 10 August 1970 and that he reenlisted for service in Vietnam. His record contains four DA Forms 2627-1 which list the offenses and dates for which he was charged.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069503C070402
He was sent to Germany, liked his duty, and reenlisted for his present duty assignment. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: However, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) that he signed at the time of separation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001941C070206
However, at the time of the applicant’s separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge. The applicant has provided no evidence to show that his discharge was unjust. However, there is no evidence, and the applicant has provided none, to support his allegations to show that he was treated unfairly or to show that the chaplain provided such information.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004795
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. On 18 October 1973, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant 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 (Personnel Separations General Provisions for Discharge and Release), chapter 10. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080000743
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 April 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080000743 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. On 11 April 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge for unsuitability under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 and directed that he receive a General Discharge Certificate. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070442C070402
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable and that the reason and authority be changed. Notwithstanding the applicant's youth, immaturity, background, family problems or psychiatric diagnosis, he had demonstrated the capacity for honorable service by the completion of training, early promotion and approximately a year of service without a discreditable incident of record. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072297C070403
Although not explained in the available records, the applicant’s commander at Fort Bragg also initiated a bar to reenlistment against him on 18 September 1973. He had used drugs and had been counseled by his chain of command, yet he had failed to submit to his drug problem with “Operation Awareness”, “Mental Hygiene” and “Quarter Ward.” While the Board recognizes that he did serve two tours in Vietnam, his record of service during his second tour and his conduct after returning from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011571
The applicant states, in effect, the following: * he enlisted in the U.S. Army via the "buddy plan" he was only 17 years old and received parental consent from his mother * he explains his military service and that he was given guarantees that the Army did not live up to consequently, he felt a great deal of animosity, mistreatment, and was very disenchanted * he was stationed in Germany after his initial training, instead of Vietnam with his fellow classmates * he reenlisted for 6 years...