| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Member | ||
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded to include benefits.
APPLICANT STATES: That he has been receiving treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) since 1999 but now someone at the VA told him he is not entitled to benefits. He was in the stockade four times and served one year in confinement at Fort Leavenworth, KS but he has never been convicted of a felony. His discharge was upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions sometime in the 1970s. He provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was inducted into the Army on 17 November 1965.
On 28 January 1966, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 31 December 1965 to on or about 19 January 1966.
On 28 September 1966, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 3 May to 29 August 1966. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months.
On 24 May 1967, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 13 November 1966 to 25 April 1967. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and to forfeit $35.00 for 6 months.
On 14 August 1968, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 11 March to 11 July 1968. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and to forfeit $35.00 for 6 months.
The applicant's discharge packet is not available. On 1 October 1968, he was discharged, with an undesirable discharge, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness. He had completed 7 months and 18 days of creditable active service and had 820 days of lost time.
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, sexual perversion, drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit-forming drugs or marijuana, an established pattern for shirking, an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts or failure to contribute adequate support to dependents, were subject to separation for unfitness. Such action would be taken when it was clearly established that despite attempts to rehabilitate or develop him as a satisfactory soldier further effort was unlikely to succeed.
On 22 June 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), under the provisions of the Department of Defense Special Discharge Review Board (SDRP), upgraded the applicant’s discharge to a general discharge under honorable conditions.
On 5 September 1978, the ADRB, having re-reviewed the applicant’s record as required by Public Law 95-126, determined not to affirm the re-characterization of his discharge. The ADRB noted that he had four periods of AWOL and two periods of confinement totaling 820 days of lost time and a total of only 7 months and 18 days of "good" time.
The SDRP was based on a memorandum from Secretary of Defense Brown and is often referred to as the “Carter Program.” It mandated the upgrade of individual cases in which the applicant met one of several specified criteria and when the separation was not based on a specified compelling reason to the contrary. The ADRB had no discretion in such cases other than to decide whether recharacterization to fully honorable as opposed to a general discharge was warranted in a particular case. An individual who had received a punitive discharge was not eligible for consideration under the SDRP. Absentees who returned to military control under the program were eligible for consideration after they were processed for separation. Eligibility for the program was restricted to individuals discharged with either an undesirable discharge or a general discharge between 9 August 1964 and 28 March 1973, inclusive.
Public Law 95-126 provided in pertinent part for a “Relook Program.” All cases upgraded from under other than honorable conditions under the SDRP or Presidential Proclamation programs (and their extensions) had to be relooked and affirmed or not affirmed under uniform standards.
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. 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 and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.
2. This Board also notes that the applicant had four periods of extensive AWOLs and only 7 months and 18 days of creditable active service. It appears that the ADRB made a justifiable decision not to affirm the upgrade of his discharge.
3. Medical benefits to veterans are administered under the purview of the VA. The Department of Defense has no jurisdiction over how that Agency determines a veteran's eligibility to receive such benefits.
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.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__RVO__ __MKP _ __AAO __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002075787 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/10/01 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1968/10/01 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-212 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A51.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015162
On 25 May 1977, the ADRB upgraded the applicants undesirable discharge to a general under honorable conditions discharge under the DOD SDRP. The DVA stated three reasons for its decision: (1) under other than honorable conditions discharge on 17 July 1969 constitutes a bar to VA benefits; (2) character of discharge upgraded by DOD SDRP was not affirmed by the ADRB; therefore, cannot pay him benefits; and (3) Public Law 95-126 prohibits payment of VA benefits solely on a discharge upgraded...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004409C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded. Evidence shows that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time and that the ADRB later upgraded the applicant's discharge from Undesirable to General Under Honorable Conditions (although the upgrade was not later affirmed under Public Law 95-126). Based on these facts, the applicant’s service clearly did not meet the...
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 | CY2009 | 20090016083
On 12 July 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded the applicant's discharge to general under honorable conditions under the provisions of the 19 January 1977 extension of Presidential Proclamation (PP) 4313. Individuals could have their discharges upgraded if they met any one of the following criteria: wounded in action, received a military decoration other than a service medal, successfully completed an assignment in Southeast Asia, completed alternate service, received an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070017107
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 March 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070017107 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. The applicant states, in effect, that he served in the Army from November 1966 to January 1969 and received an under other than honorable conditions discharge and that his discharge was upgraded to a general, under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067727C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He had completed 1 year, 8 months, and 17 days of active military service and he had 67 days lost time due to being AWOL and in confinement.On 29 July 1977, the ADRB upgraded the applicant’s UD to a GD under the provisions of the DOD SDRP.On 26 July 1978, the ADRB reviewed the applicant’s discharge upgrade under the provisions of Public Law 95-126 and determined that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014202
The applicant had a rather poor record for the past year he had been in the military. On 13 March 1969, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. In the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, this program, known as the DOD SDRP, required 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,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011088C071029
The applicant requests, in effect, affirmation of the 1977 Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) decision to upgrade his undesirable discharge (UD) to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) under the provisions of the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP). The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice that occurred on 23 October 1978, the date the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) voted not to affirm the 1977 upgrade action of the SDRB. However, the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011425C070208
On 24 May 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded the applicant's undesirable discharge to a general under honorable conditions discharge under the Special Discharge Review Program. This group could apply to a Presidential Clemency Board which was made up of individuals appointed by the President (members were civilians, retired military and members of the Reserve Components) who would establish a period of alternate service of not more than 24 months that the individuals...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011969
The applicant again applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge under the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) and on 25 May 1977, the ADRB upgraded the applicants discharge to an honorable discharge. On 3 April 1978, the ADRB reviewed the applicants request for affirmation of his discharge under Public Law 95-126 and determined that his record of service did not warrant affirmation. The findings and conclusions of the ADRB in its decision not to affirm the discharge upgrade...