| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member | |
| Mr. Lawrence Foster | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was set up on a charge of selling drugs. He states that the trial process was lengthy, and after a long period of waiting, he finally requested separation under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 11 September 1969, the applicant entered the Army for a period of 3 years. He was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 36K (Field Wireman) and the highest rank he held while serving on active duty was sergeant/E-5. The record further 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.
While assigned to Vietnam, on 3 June 1971, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for unlawfully possessing 7 pills and 7 capsules of heroin, wrongfully using marihuana, and wrongfully selling heroin. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, its effects, and the possible effects of receiving an UD, he voluntarily requested an administrative discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
On 20 August 1971, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that the applicant receive an UD and be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. On 9 September 1971, the applicant was discharged accordingly. At the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 1 year,
11 months, and 29 days of creditable active military service.
On 13 January 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board determined that the applicant’s discharge had been proper and equitable, and it voted to deny the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge.
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 UD.
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 contention that he was set up on the charge of selling drugs. However, the Board finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.
2. The Board finds that the applicant, by violating the Army’s drug policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, compromised the special trust and confidence placed in him as a soldier. By possessing illegal drugs the applicant knowingly risked his military career and this misconduct clearly diminished the quality of his service below that warranting a discharge under honorable conditions. Therefore, the Board concludes the type of discharge directed was appropriate and accurately reflects the overall character of his service.
3. The evidence of record confirms that 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.
4. The Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. It also notes that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally an UD and that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge.
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
__RJW__ __WDP _ __LMB___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002080373 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/02/25 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19710909 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | In Lieu of Trail by CM |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.7400 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100029840
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 30 March 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. There is no evidence of record and he has provided no evidence to show he sustained injuries during his period of active duty 4.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058860C070421
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: 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. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that his discharge was too harsh because other soldiers who...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20120000505
On 8 March 1972, he was awarded the Purple Heart for wounds received in action on 3 March 1972. His records contain a DD Form 214 which shows he was discharged in pay grade E-1 on 8 June 1976 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 7 March 1984, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067886C070402
The applicant received three discharge reviews from the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB). Chapter 10 of that regulation provided, in pertinent part, that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge might submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085032C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. The Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge on 1 March 1973.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079620C070215
The Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s petition to upgrade his discharge. That board also presumed regularity in the processing of the applicant’s discharge because documents associated with his discharge were not in records available to that board. The applicant has presented no evidence that his separation was processed improperly.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021312
The Soldiers who told U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) investigators that they bought drugs from him were already in trouble and were falsely accusing him so their charges would be reduced or dismissed. On 15 September 1980, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100465C070208
Linda M. Barker | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests that the undesirable discharge of her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM) be upgraded to honorable. There is no indication 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 | CY2009 | 20090018361
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD) to a general under honorable conditions discharge (GD). Although there is no formal record of the mental evaluation, the medical treatment records show military medical personnel were attempting to assist the applicant with his drug problems.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016653
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. 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.