| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. William D. Powers | Member | ||
| Ms. Linda M. Barker | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he join the Army to fight for his country in Vietnam. However, given his lack of education and because he cannot read or write, the recruiter completed his enlistment paperwork. He states that he tried to serve and since President Carter gave amnesty to everyone, he now feels an upgrade of his discharge is warranted.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 10 February 1970, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 67A (Aircraft Maintenance), and was assigned to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, for basic combat training. His records reveal no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition, and the highest rank he attained while on active duty was
private/E-1.
While assigned to Fort Campbell, the applicant was convicted by a special
court-martial on 8 April 1970, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 16 to
22 March 1970. The resultant sentence included confinement for one month and forfeiture of $50.00 pay for two months.
The applicant also went AWOL from 6 May 1970 to 20 March 1972, and again from 26 April 1972 to 5 May 1972. His unit commander initiated separation action on him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, for unauthorized absence in excess of one year based on his AWOL period from 6 May 1970 to 20 March 1972. After acknowledging receipt of the separation action, the applicant waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, representation by appointed counsel, and he elected not to submit statements in his own behalf.
On 21 April 1972, the separation action was approved by the appropriate authority. On 5 May 1972, the applicant was discharged from the Army with an UD. At the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 2 months and
7 days of creditable active military service, and he had accrued 739 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade to his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. Section VII of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that individuals may be considered for discharge when it is determined by administrative review of all facts that there is substantial evidence to support a determination of desertion or absence without leave. The unauthorized absence has continued for more than 1 year and the retention of the individual is precluded by regulations or is not considered desirable or in the best interest of the United States. 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, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The Board notes the applicant’s contentions that his lack of education impaired his ability to serve and that an upgrade to his discharge is warranted based on the amnesty granted by President Carter. However, it finds insufficient evidence to show these factors are sufficiently mitigation to warrant the requested relief.
2. The evidence of record confirms that his discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations and that his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case, and 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.
3. In order to justify correction of a military 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
__RJW__ __WDP _ __ LMB__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002079413 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/03/04 |
| 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. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075234C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 18 December 1974, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. On 18 December 1974, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084087C070212
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 Board concludes that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and the character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014141C071029
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 April 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060014141 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. On 29 November 1973, the applicant was discharged, with an undesirable discharge, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for civil conviction. As a result, the time for the applicant to file a request for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016656
On 19 February 1968, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations - Discharge Misconduct Fraudulent Entry, Conviction by Civil Court, Absent Without Leave (AWOL), Desertion). Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, provides administration separation guidance for enlisted personnel who have committed an act of misconduct. It states, for the SPD code 284, the authority is Army Regulation 635-206 and the reason is misconduct, convicted by a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 04102662C070208
The applicant states that everyone, even the President was granted amnesty, and as such his discharge is in error or unjust. Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant was 17 years old when he enlisted in the United States Army on 20 May 1971. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to upgrade his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004978C070206
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge, characterized as under other than honorable conditions, be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to upgrade his discharge. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070006667
The applicant states, in effect, that he believes the record to be unjust in that the separating officials failed to take into consideration the medical/mental condition he was in at the time he went AWOL (absent without leave), which was the primary consideration in the determination for and time for discharge. He states that on several occasions, he had previously been diagnosed as having a "Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder" and "Latent Schizophrenia" and there was no record or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010569C070208
He states, that he was already worried about his family’s welfare, when his mother wrote to say that her lights and water was turned off. On 16 June 1972, the separation authority directed that he be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, by reason of misconduct (civil conviction), and directed that the applicant receive an undesirable discharge. On 4 October 1976, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006680
On 13 October 1971, he acknowledged that he had been advised by counsel of the contemplated action to separate him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations Discharge Misconduct (Fraudulent Entry, Conviction by Civil Court, and Absence without Leave or Desertion)) by reason of conviction by a civil court. There is no evidence he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The evidence...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076266C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 28 August 1972, the applicant was also notified by his commander that he was being recommended for separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, for fraudulent entry, based on his concealment of his prior service in the Marine Corps (1 September to 30 September 1970), at the time of his enlistment. He provided discharge documents from the...