| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | ||
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he is currently very ill and is in need of medical help. He claims that in 1969, he and a friend, who was a truck driver, were riding around and purchased a bag of marijuana. He states that he does not recall who purchased the marijuana, but he believes it was his friend. He indicates that the vehicle they were riding around in was stopped by the Military Police (MP), and he was observed removing the marijuana from his friend’s pocket and throwing it on the ground. As a result, he was charged with possession of marijuana. He claims that he was told by his first sergeant that because his pay grade was E-5 he could resign. All this time since his discharge, he always believed that he had resigned and he did not know the type of discharge he had received.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant entered the Army on 2 October 1967. Upon completion of his training, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 67N (Helicopter Repairer). His record shows that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was specialist five/E-5 (SP5/E-5). It also shows that during his active duty tenure, he earned the following awards: National Defense Service Medal; Vietnam Service Medal; and Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with
60 Device.
On 26 June 1969, while the applicant was serving in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN), a court-martial charge was preferred against him for the possession of marijuana. The applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the impact of an UD, and of his rights in connection with the matter.
Subsequent to receiving legal counseling, the applicant voluntarily requested, in writing, that he be discharged under the provisions of chapter 10,
Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by
court-martial. In his request, he confirmed that he had not been coerced into requesting the discharge, and that he fully understood the implications that were attached to an UD. This included his being deprived of many or all Army benefits, his ineligibility for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the fact that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under State and Federal law.
On 28 June 1969, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge request and directed that he receive an UD, and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank and pay grade.
On 7 July 1969, the applicant was separated from active duty with an UD under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. At the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 1 year, 8 months, and 27 days of creditable active military service.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and it is concluded:
1. The Board notes the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge because he is critically ill, needs medical assistance, and is unable to afford outside medical insurance. However, it finds no evidence to support these claims. Further, the Board concludes that even if these factors were true, they are still not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.
2. The evidence of record shows the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge. The Board notes that, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, he admitted guilt to the stipulated offenses under the UCMJ.
3. Further, the Board finds that an UD was normally considered appropriate for members separating under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation
635-200, and it further concludes that the applicant was fully aware of that prior to requesting discharge. Thus, the Board concludes that there is an insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s allegation that he was unaware of the type of discharge he was receiving or of its ultimate impact on his entitlement to veterans benefits.
4. Lacking independent evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, the Board finds that the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case and the applicant’s overall record of service.
5. 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.
6. 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__ __BJE__ __KAH__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002076830 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/10/24 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19690707 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR625-200 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | In Lieu Trial by CM |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.7400 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014451
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. His mother did not want him to go to Vietnam; however, having completed basic training, the first thing he had ever tried away from home, he thought he could handle anything. The separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service and directed that the applicant be reduced to pay grade E-1 and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011030
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). Subsequent to this legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel). On 21 March 1978, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined the applicant's discharge was proper and equitable after carefully considering the applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063178C070421
The applicant’s military records show that he was inducted into the Army of the United States and entered active duty on 13 March 1968. Although the Board finds the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable at the time, after considering his entire record of service, including his combat service in the RVN, which resulted in his being awarded the CIB and Purple Heart, and his excellent post service conduct; the Board concludes that he has been sufficiently penalized for his misconduct...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012531
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 April 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060012531 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. However, his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows that he was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 20 January 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110012923
The applicant requests his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general discharge. In his request for discharge, he acknowledged he understood that if the discharge request was approved he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a UD was normally considered appropriate at the time the applicant was discharged.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130001343
The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions. However, his records include: a. a memorandum from Headquarters, U.S. Army Personnel Center, Oakland, CA, dated 16 April 1970, subject: Review of Discharge (Applicant), showing he acknowledged he was being issued an undesirable discharge and his right to request a review of his discharge by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB); and b. a properly-constituted DD Form 214 showing he was discharged under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110013072
The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army in pay grade E-1 on 9 July 1968 for 3 years. However, his records contain a DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) which shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial in pay grade E-1 on 6 January 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. On 15 October 1973 and 2 January...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082573C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The available records show that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130006337
The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. In addition, his records contain the DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued that shows he was discharged on 10 February 1982, in the rank of PVT, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for conduct triable by court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. The evidence of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000129
However, at the time, an undesirable discharge was normally given. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. The author contends that had the applicant returned to duty instead of going AWOL, he most likely would have been discharged early with an honorable discharge and, therefore, based on his PTSD and compassion, his discharge should now be upgraded.