Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077853C070215
Original file (2002077853C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 3 April 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002077853

         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. G. E. Vandenberg Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler Chairperson
Mr. Roger W. Able Member
Mr. Patrick H. McGann, Jr. 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 discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, he needs an upgrade to under honorable conditions in order to receive Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical benefits and to go back to school.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show that:

The applicant entered active duty on 4 October 1966 and completed basic combat training and advanced individual training without incident.

On 1 March 1967, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment, under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being absent without leave (AWOL) for 4 days.

He received three special court-martial convictions for being AWOL, on 24 October 1967, on 24 January 1968, and on 5 July 1968.

The applicant went AWOL again on December 1968 and remained absent until 5 November 1970.

On 9 November 1970, the applicant’s command commenced actions to discharge him due to unfitness under Army Regulation 635-212.

On 13 November, after consulting with military counsel, the applicant acknowledged this action and waived his rights to have his case considered by a board of officers, to personally appear before a board of officers, and to submit a statement on his own behalf. He acknowledged that if he received an undesirable discharge (under other than honorable conditions) that he would be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran.

The discharge authority approved the request and directed that the applicant be discharged and given an undesirable discharge.

The applicant was discharged on 11 December 1970, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. He is shown to have 10 months and 14 days of creditable time with 1202 days lost due to being AWOL (920 days) or in military confinement (232 days).

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board and was dened any relief on 13 March 1981.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 6 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that an individual was subject to separation for unfitness because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. When separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

2. Entitlement to VA benefits is not within the preview of this Board nor is it normally considered a basis for granting relief.

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. 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

__SAC__ ___RWA_ ___PHM_ DENY APPLICATION




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



INDEX

CASE ID AR2002077853
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED 20030403
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058663C070421

    Original file (2001058663C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 21 August 1970, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness and directed that the applicant be furnished a general discharge. On 25 February 1974 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade to honorable. The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included four nonjudicial punishments, four special court-martial convictions and 640 days lost due...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072164C070403

    Original file (2002072164C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT STATES : That he was informed at his court-martial that his discharge would be upgraded after a certain number of years and it has not been done. On 21 August 1969, NJP was imposed against him for failure to obey a lawful order from the battalion commander and for failure to go to his place of duty. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070208C070402

    Original file (2002070208C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On an unknown date, the applicant voluntarily requested an assignment in Vietnam. On 5 February 1970, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090084C070212

    Original file (2003090084C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. It is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable 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:

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076702C070215

    Original file (2002076702C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He also claims that the recurrent memories from the war were more than he could handle, and he was on strong pain medication for frequent headaches. On 5 October 1973, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed the applicant’s case and after determining that his discharge was proper and equitable, it denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082256C070215

    Original file (2002082256C070215.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. Since the applicant has not submitted any specific matters which the Board could consider in determining whether his discharge should be upgraded based on equity , there is no basis for granting his request.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072150C070403

    Original file (2002072150C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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: There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083527C070212

    Original file (2003083527C070212.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. APPLICANT STATES : That his overall combat service was not given consideration at the time of his discharge. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076102C070215

    Original file (2002076102C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He had completed 2 years, 9 months and 9 days of creditable service and had 428 days lost time due to being AWOL or in confinement. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. There is no available evidence of record and the applicant provides none to show that he had any medical condition which indicates he was unfit for separation.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058144C070420

    Original file (2001058144C070420.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. APPLICANT STATES : That he requests that his discharge be reinstated to a general discharge because he was in the Army for two years mainly performing hard labor without pay. On 20 May 1969, the applicant acknowledged notification of separation action for unfitness, consulted with legal counsel, waived his right to a hearing...