| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern III | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his request to have his undesirable discharge upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: That he is requesting that his discharge be upgraded because he received a full pardon from President Ford in 1975. He also states that he was “not afforded proper representation” at the time of his discharge. In support of his request he submits a copy of the presidential pardon.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records that were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case (AC80-00052) on 12 March 1980.
The applicant's submission of the presidential pardon and his contention that counsel did not properly represent him at the time of his discharge constitutes a new argument, which has not been previously addressed by the Board.
The applicant served on active duty between 24 February 1969 and 1 September 1971. During that time the applicant accumulated more than 250 days of lost time, was convicted by one summary and one special court-martial and was punished numerous times under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
In August 1971 after being charged with yet another period of being absent without leave, the applicant requested an administrative discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In his request the applicant acknowledged that he had consulted with counsel and that he understood the nature and consequences of the undesirable discharge which he might receive. He indicated he understood he could be denied some or all veterans' benefits as a result of his discharge and that he may be deprived of rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.
Included with the applicant’s request for separation was a statement authenticated by his legal counsel who certified that he had advised the applicant regarding his rights and that the applicant had personally made the choices indicated on his request for separation.
The applicant’s request was approved and he was issued an undesirable discharge certificate.
On 23 August 1975 the applicant was issued a “full pardon” certificate and a “grant of executive clemency” under the provisions of “Presidential Proclamation 4313.”
In 1978 and again in 1981 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s petition to have his undesirable discharge upgraded.
Presidential Proclamation 4313, issued on 16 September 1974, provided for the issuance of a clemency discharge to certain former soldiers who voluntarily entered into and completed an alternate restitution program specifically designed for former soldiers who received a less than honorable discharge for AWOL (absent without leave) related incidents between August 1964 and March 1973. Upon successful completion of the alternate service, former members would be granted a clemency discharge by the President of the United States, thus restoring his or her affected civil rights. The clemency discharge did not effect the underlying discharge and did not entitle the individual to any benefits administered by the Veterans Administration. Soldiers who were AWOL entered the program by returning to military control and accepting a discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.
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, it is concluded:
1. The applicant’s contention that he was not afforded proper representation at the time of his discharge is not supported by the evidence available to the Board. The Board notes that the applicant acknowledged in his request for an administrative discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial that he had consulted with counsel. Additionally, the applicant’s records contain a document authenticated by his legal counsel attesting that the applicant was counseled and personally made his choice to request separation.
2. While the applicant may have been granted a pardon under Presidential Proclamation 4313, the pardon was merely a grant of clemency, which restored the applicant’s civil rights. The action did not affect the basis or character of an individual’s discharge and does not serve as a basis to justify upgrading the individual’s discharge at this time.
3. 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.
4. The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.
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
__AAO __ __TBR__ __TEO___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002077676 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030401 |
| 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. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001055046C070420
On 22 October 1975, he received a full pardon (grant of executive clemency) under Presidential Proclamation 4313. The Clemency Discharge is a neutral discharge, issued neither under “honorable conditions” nor under “other than honorable conditions.” A Clemency Discharge does not affect the underlying discharge and does not entitle the individual to any benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (formerly Veterans Administration). The applicant’s voluntary request for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062196C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge on 25 March 1982. The applicant, in fact, was granted a clemency discharge which under the provisions of Presidential Proclamation 4313 did not change the characterization of the applicant’s discharge under other than honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075305C070403
Upon successful completion of the alternate service, former members would be granted a “clemency” discharge by the President of the United States, thus restoring his or her affected civil rights. 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: After considering his overall record of service with regard to the Presidential Proclamation 4313 program, the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140020231
The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. Chapter 10 provides 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. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate at a time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027548
The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge. On 27 July 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of court-martial. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged for the good of the service - in lieu of a court-martial with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions and issuance of an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060007631C070205
The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged on 23 January 1970 under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate with service characterized as under other than honorable conditions. There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011643
However, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, on 6 November 1973, while in absentia, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. There is no evidence that shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. _______ _ _x______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056103C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his clemency discharge be upgraded to honorable. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082751C070215
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: On 15 November 1973 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021700
The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge. Counsel states: * The applicant's unit was involved in numerous combat activities in the RVN * He was wounded twice while serving as a gunner and his actions and the action of his unit earned them the Presidential Unit Citation * His troubles began in 1969 when he had conflicts with the new battery commander who was not an experienced combat officer on combat tactics and employment of weapons systems * The...