Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075141C070403
Original file (2002075141C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 15 August 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002075141

         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun Director
Mr. Joseph A. Adriance Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. John N. Slone Chairperson
Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright Member
Mr. Jose A. Martinez Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

         The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)


APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that after completing a combat tour in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN), he was stationed at Fort Hood, Texas, where he was unable to function. He claims that he was a totally different person after returning from the RVN. He began experiencing nightmares about being on the front lines. He states that having these nightmares made living each day a challenge, and resulted in his making the poor choice to abuse alcohol. He admits that he used someone else’s credit card without their permission and to forging their signature to purchase fuel for his automobile. He indicates that he understands that these actions were illegal and should not have happened. However, he contends that his state of mind at the time was not normal, and he did very stupid things. He also comments that he could not sleep without having nightmares of his war experiences, and that he felt he could trust nobody. He also claims that he stayed to himself and was very depressed as a result of seeing so many of his friends killed in the RVN. In addition, he indicates that he felt that he was cheating because he had not been one of those killed. He also states that he is being treated by a psychiatrist at a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) medical facility and as a result, he now understands that his actions were caused by his mental health condition, which was related to his service in the RVN.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records were not available to the Board for review. However, some disciplinary records and parts of his separation processing file were provided by the DVA. In addition, a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214) was also available to the Board during its review of this case.

The applicant served a total of 6 years and 11 days of active military service. The period of enlistment under review covers the period 27 January 1965 through 28 February 1968. During this enlistment period, he completed a total of 2 years, 2 months, and 6 days of creditable active military service, and he accrued 325 days of time lost due to being absent without leave (AWOL) and in confinement.

The available evidence documents an extensive disciplinary history on the applicant during the enlistment under review. Special Orders Number 151, issued by Headquarters Committee Group, Fort Polk, Louisiana, directed the applicant’s reduction from specialist four/E-4 to private first class/E-3, effective
10 October 1966, due to his own misconduct. In addition, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on the following two separate occasions for the offenses indicated: 9 September 1966, for being AWOL from on or about 6 to on or about 9 September 1966; and on 29 July 1967, for being AWOL from on or about 24 to on or about 26 July 1967.
On 14 March 1967 he was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from on or about 26 to on or about 31 October 1966; and from on or about
31 October 1966 to on or about 16 February 1967. His sentence included confinement at hard labor for three months, and a forfeiture of $80.00 per month for three months.

On 6 April 1967, the applicant was tried in the 54th District Court of McLennan County, Texas, and was adjudged guilty of forgery. In September 1967, he was imprisoned in the State penitentiary for a term of not less than 2 years nor more than 3 years.

On 27 January 1968, a board of officers convened for the purpose of determining if the applicant should be discharged from the Army prior to his normal expiration of term of service. This consideration was necessary based on his being convicted by a civil court and sentenced to imprisonment. The Board found that the applicant was undesirable for further retention in the military service because of his conviction by a civil court. It also recommended that he be discharged from the service because of misconduct (conviction by a civil court) and that he receive an UD.

The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on the date of his separation confirms that he was undesirably discharged on 28 February 1968, in the rank of private/E-1. It also shows that he served in the RVN for 11 months and 23 days, and that during his active duty tenure he earned the following awards: Vietnam Service Medal; Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal; and Sharpshooter Marksmanship Badge (Rifle).

There is no evidence to show the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade to his discharge within the 15 year statute of limitations.

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 Board notes the applicant’s contention that a mental condition he suffered as a result of his combat service in the RVN impaired his ability to serve and contributed to his misconduct. However, even if this factor is true, lacking specific evidence to show that this condition was so serious that it prevented him from distinguishing right from wrong and adhering to the right, the Board finds it is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.


2. The available evidence confirms that the applicant had an extensive disciplinary history of military infractions prior to the civil conviction that ultimately led to his discharge. Further, there is no evidence to show that his combat service was performed under any extraordinarily harsh conditions or that he earned any valor awards during this combat service that would warrant it mitigating the serious misconduct that led to his discharge.

3. The applicant’s service records were not available to the Board, and there was no information available on his over three years of prior active service performed prior to the enlistment under review. However, it is clear that he would have received a DD Form 214 documenting this 3 years, 10 months, and 5 days of prior active service. This separation document may still be used by the applicant to confirm this period of honorable service when it is necessary or appropriate.

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

__JNS __ __INW __ __JAM __ DENY APPLICATION




                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records




INDEX

CASE ID AR2002075141
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED 2002/08/15
TYPE OF DISCHARGE UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE 1968/02/28
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR 635-206
DISCHARGE REASON Civil Conviction
BOARD DECISION DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 189 110.0000
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.



Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010669

    Original file (20080010669.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He served for a period of 1 year, 1 month, and 4 days until being honorably released from active duty for the purpose of immediate reenlistment on 5 April 1965. 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. The...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009784

    Original file (20090009784.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 October 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090009784 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states, in effect, that he was told his UD would be upgraded to a general discharge (GD), under honorable conditions discharge after 5 years and that his GD would later be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). On 10 August 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), after careful consideration of the applicant's case, voted to deny his request for an...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | 20060003329

    Original file (20060003329.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 26 April 1968, the separation authority approved the separation action on the applicant and directed that he receive an UD. The applicant's contention that his overall record of service, and post service good conduct support an upgrade of his discharge, and the supporting documents he submitted were carefully considered. The evidence confirms the applicant had an extensive disciplinary history throughout the time he served, which included the time he served in the RVN.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078900C070215

    Original file (2002078900C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 26 February 1970, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The separation document (DD Form 214) that was issued to the applicant on the date of his discharge, 26 February 1970, shows that he received an UD under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for unfitness, by reason of civil conviction.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001681

    Original file (20090001681.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 14 May 1971, the applicant's intermediate commander recommended approval of the applicant's discharge, with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, and remarked that the applicant's sentence to confinement for not less than 25 years warranted his discharge from the Army. Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for misconduct. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016115

    Original file (20140016115.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The military judge gave him a choice between a general discharge and return to service for 6 years to make up the 20 months of AWOL plus a reenlistment time that included 2 years in Vietnam. He served in Vietnam from on or about 20 October 1966 to on or about 22 September 1967. 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 | CY2001 | 2001064909C070421

    Original file (2001064909C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the Board found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013754C071029

    Original file (20060013754C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 31 July 1978, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3-year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075234C070403

    Original file (2002075234C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 18 December 1974, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. On 18 December 1974, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010425

    Original file (20120010425.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 8 May 1970, the applicant was discharged accordingly. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.