| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Joyce A. Hall | Analyst |
| Ms. JoAnn H. Langston | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Margaret V. Thompson | Member | ||
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his General Discharge (GD) be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, he served in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN); his duties included assigning helicopter pilots and door gunners to many different types of missions involving the war in the RVN. As a flight coordinator he sent the pilots on missions and communicated with them by radio. He heard first hand the screams as they were being shot down. He could not live with himself knowing that he sent many of them to their deaths.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 15 September 1969, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B10 (light weapons infantryman).
The highest pay grade he achieved was pay grade E-4.
On or about 20 February 1970, the applicant departed for assignment in the RVN. He was assigned to Company C, 1st Battalion, 7th Calvary, 1st Calvary Division (Airmobile) as a rifleman. He was also assigned to Company C,
229th Aviation Battalion, 1st Air Calvary Division as a flight operator coordinator, a clerk typist, and as a shop clerk. On 11 May 1970, the applicant was honorably discharged and reenlisted on 15 May 1970, for a total of 6 years.
On or about 22 February 1971, the applicant departed the RVN. He was reassigned to the 8th Evacuation Hospital, Fort Ord, California.
On 17 May 1971, the applicant accepted nonjudical punishment under Article
15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent without leave (AWOL) from
30 April to 11 May 1971 and from 12 to 15 May 1971. His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-3 and 14 days restriction.
On 3 April 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 21 July to 6 August 1971 and from 11 August 1971 to
22 February 1972.
A mental and a physical evaluation found the applicant fit of separation.
On 4 April 1972, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and
that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administrations benefits. The applicant was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf. The applicant stated in effect, that his reasons for going AWOL were because he was having martial problems.
The applicant’s commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request with an undesirable discharge.
On 14 April 1972, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. On
3 May 1972, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-3, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a GD. He completed 1 year, 11 months and 26 days of creditable active service and he had 233 days of lost time.
The applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows an additional
period of AWOL from 27 April to 3 May 1972.
On 27 April 1978, the Army Discharge Review Board ADRB denied the applicant’s request for a change in the type and nature of discharge, under the
Department of Defense Special Review Program.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority of the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included 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. A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.
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.
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 trail 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. Normally an undesirable discharge is generally considered for this type of offense. However, the applicant’s Vietnam service and personal decorations was taken into consideration in giving a GD.
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
__JHL__ __MVT__ ___RTD__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002068528 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/10/17 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022796
Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel and without coercion, he voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. On 16 November 1971, the separation authority approved his request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, with an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059206C070421
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. 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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. Army policy states that although an honorable or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073818C070403
On 28 October 1971, subsequent to his completing his combat tour in the RVN, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for two periods of AWOL: from 5 June 1970 to 15 July 1970; and from 12 August 1970 to 15 October 1971. In support of his application, the applicant provides a letter confirming that he is being treated by a DVA staff psychologist for a PTSD that is based on his service in the RVN. In contrast to his record of misconduct, the applicant’s military service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018346
The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 7 August 1970. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of the FSM's discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. The separation authority clearly recognized the applicant's combat service in the RVN when he directed the applicant receive a GD even though a UOTHC discharge or UD was normally appropriate for members discharged in lieu...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050017556C070206
Ernestine R. Fields | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 14 April 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he receive an UD. The applicant's honorable service is documented in the DD Form 214 he was issued on 30 March 1971, at the time of his reenlistment.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003206
Subsequent to receiving this counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations). 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052362C070420
He was honorably discharged from this period of service on 12 January 1968. The applicant was transferred from Fort Campbell to Fort Bragg, North Carolina where he served as a vehicle driver in the 82 nd Airborne Division until he was honorably discharged on 12 January 1968 in pay grade E-5. On 22 January 1970, while he was assigned to Fort Bragg, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years in pay grade E-4.
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050011878
Rose M. Lys | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests that his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) be corrected to show he served in Vietnam. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides for award of the Vietnam Service Medal.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006521
Item 44 (Time Lost) of the applicant's DA Form 20 shows that between 1 February 1971 and 14 January 1972, he accrued a total of 323 days of time lost during three separate periods of AWOL, and a period of military confinement. The same regulation states that an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. Therefore, the UD the applicant received was normal and appropriate under the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027142
The applicant requests his discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). On 30 August 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he receive a UD. Notwithstanding the initial upgrade of his discharge under the SDRP based on his service in the RVN, it is clear the 1978 determination of the ADRB not to affirm this upgrade action under the uniform discharge review standards established in DOD Directive 1332-28 was the correct action...