| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr. | Analyst |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern | Member | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Lutz | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was unable to adjust to military life. He was young and immature and, after he returned from Vietnam, he just wanted out of the Army regardless of the type of discharge. He served honorably for at least 1½ years. He now has medical problems, high blood pressure, diabetes and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and needs medical help from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted and entered active duty on 10 September 1968, completed training as a field wireman and was advanced to pay grade E-3 on 13 February 1969. He was posted to Vietnam where he was attached to Headquarters and Headquarters Battery, 6th Battalion, 77th Artillery on 23 February 1969. On 23 March 1969, he was transferred to C Battery, 1st Battalion, 84th Artillery.
He was convicted by a special court-martial, on 19 July 1969, of absence without leave (AWOL) from 28 March to 24 April 1969, 29 April to 2 May 1969, 31 May to 5 July 1969, and 7 July to 10 July 1969. The approved sentenced included forfeiture of $400.00 per month for 4 months and confinement for 6 months.
On 6 August 1969, he was returned to the United States and was discharged on 9 August 1969 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness due to an established pattern of shirking. He had 1 year, 9 months and 1 day of creditable service and 68 days lost time.
The details of the applicant's separation are not contained in the available records.
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 6 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that an individual was subject to separation for unfitness because of an established pattern of shirking. When separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.
On 4 April 1977 the Department of Defense (DOD) directed the Services to review all less than fully honorable administrative discharges issued between 4 August 1964 and 28 March 1973. This program, known as the DOD Discharge Review Program (Special) (SDRP) required, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, that a discharge upgrade to either honorable or general be issued in the case of any individual who had either completed a normal tour of
duty in Southeast Asia, been wounded in action, been awarded a military decoration other than a service medal, had received an honorable discharge from a previous period of service, or had a record of satisfactory military service of 24 months prior to discharge. The above criteria were designated primary criteria. Consideration of other factors (secondary criteria), including possible personal problems which may have contributed to the acts which led to the discharge, and a record of good citizenship since the time of discharge, would also be considered upon application by the individual.
Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 1332.28 provides the policy and guidance for discharge review. It provides, in pertinent part, that when it is determined that the rights of an individual were prejudiced by an error of fact, law, procedure or discretion such error will be considered material if there is substantial doubt that the discharge would have remained the same if the error had not occurred.
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 discharge should have been reviewed under the SDRP, but this failure is not a material error, within the meaning of DOD Directive 1332.28, because there is no substantial doubt that the discharge would have remained the same. The applicant did not meet the primary criteria and the secondary criteria were not applicable since the applicant did not apply for consideration under the SDRP.
2. The applicant's alleged youth and immaturity does not indicate that there is an error or injustice in the discharge because he had demonstrated a capacity for honorable service by completing training, advancing to pay grade E-3 and serving for more than 6½ months without an offense of record.
3. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that the applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
4. 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.
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
__KAK__ __TBR___ __BJL___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002074705 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021029 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19690806 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-212 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A50.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | A93.01 |
| 2. | A92.00 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002609
The applicant states he is a Vietnam veteran and had been receiving VA benefits. Army Regulation 635-200 also provided for a general discharge under honorable conditions for an individual whose military record was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. On 17 June 1977, the ADRB upgraded the applicants discharge from an undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge under the DOD SDRP based on a mandate contained in the established DOD SDRP criteria concerning...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011501
The applicant requests, in effect, that his General Discharge (GD), under the provisions of the Department of Defense (DOD) Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP), be affirmed. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The evidence shows that the applicant had behavioral problems but no mental disorder.
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 | CY2007 | 20070012191
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge (GD), upgraded by the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP), be changed to an honorable discharge. When separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record. This program, known as the DOD Discharge Review Program (Special) (SDRP) required, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, that a discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130004433
On 15 July 1969, the applicant underwent a separation physical at the 9th Medical Battalion in Vietnam. On 18 July 1969, the applicant submitted a statement to his commander wherein he stated that he (the commander) had wronged him in that he (the commander) decided to punish him upon the conclusion of a special court-martial by having him discharged. The applicant provides: a.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001033
The applicant requests, in effect, affirmation of his general discharge under the provisions of the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP). On 1 June 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded the applicant's discharge to general under honorable conditions under the provisions of the SDRP. As a result, his record of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel and there is insufficient basis to affirm his general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007381
The law further required that uniform discharge review standards be published that were applicable to all persons administratively discharged or released from active duty under other than honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200 provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The ADRB upgraded the applicants discharge from under other than honorable conditions to general under honorable conditions under the DOD SDRP on 16 February 1978...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012295
On 7 July 1977, the FSM was notified that the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered his request under the DOD SDRP and directed that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The ADRB considered his request under the DOD SDRP and directed that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. showing the FSM was separated...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007277
On 26 March 1969, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unfitness and directed the applicant be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 10 August 1978, the Army Discharge Review Board re-reviewed the applicants discharge as required by Public Law 95-126. This program, known as the DOD SDRP, required, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, that a discharge upgrade to either...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011165
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge under the provisions of the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) be upgraded to honorable. On 18 June 1971, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant be furnished an undesirable discharge. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.