| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern | Member | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: The applicant does not provide any matters for the Board to consider.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 July 1965, was awarded the military occupational specialty of infantryman, and was promoted to pay grade E-5.
He served in Europe from 9 December 1965 to 26 June 1966, and in Vietnam from 25 April 1967 to 28 November 1968. While in Vietnam, on 22 November 1967 the applicant reenlisted.
On 11 July 1969, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for disobeying a lawful order, and for failure to go at the time prescribed (two counts).
On 11 August 1969, the applicant accepted NJP for absenting himself from his place of duty.
On 21 October 1970, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 7 July to 29 July 1970; of being AWOL from 2 to 28 August 1970; and of being AWOL from 1 to 15 September 1970.
On 19 February 1971, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 27 November 1970 to 17 February 1971.
On 5 April 1971, the applicant was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. He had a total of 4 years, 9 months and 7 days creditable service, and 337 days of lost time. The applicant’s separation document shows that he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Vietnam Campaign Medal with 1960 device, the Vietnam Service Medal, and the Good Conduct Medal (for his first period of service).
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 6a(1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness. 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 applicant’s records clearly show a pattern of repeated misconduct which would warrant an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
2. While the applicant’s actual discharge proceedings are not contained in his records, in the absence of documentation to show otherwise, the Board must presume regularity, that what the Army did was proper and just.
3. 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.
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
___tbr ___ ___kah__ ____aao_ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002082256 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030605 |
| 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. | A50.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067413C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The following information was taken from his hearing before the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 17 April 1984. On 27 May 1987, docket number AC86-08662, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) denied the applicant's request.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040001792C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD) and correction of the number of days of time lost recorded on his separation document (DD Form 214). On 4 March 1971, the applicant was discharged accordingly. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year statute of limitations prescribed by law.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076702C070215
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 | CY2005 | 20050005908C070206
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. However, the regulation provides that an honorable or general discharge certificate may be awarded if the individual has been awarded a personal decoration or if warranted by the particular circumstances in a given case. The regulation under which the applicant was discharged provides for the issuance of a discharge under honorable conditions when the individual has been awarded a personal decoration.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003434C070208
The applicant’s record shows that he initially enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 30 September 1964. However, it does include a DD Form 214 that shows the applicant was separated with an UD on 26 August 1970, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness. The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004126C070208
Larry Olson | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests that his records be corrected to reflect award of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm and that his March 1971 general discharge be upgraded to fully honorable. Such conduct is evidence that the applicant continued to be able to serve honorably following his return from Vietnam and that may have contributed to his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021730
The psychiatrist recommended the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability. Given the circumstances in this case, the applicant's discharge was inequitable for the following reasons: * he served 4 years, 1 month, and 4 days of creditable service * he served in Vietnam for 1 year, 8 months, and 27 days * he was twice wounded and twice cited for meritorious service * he was promoted to SSG/E-6 in three short years * from 30 November 1966 to 7 May...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085489C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 25 October 1967, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for being AWOL from 3 August to 18 August 1967. The ADRB determined that he had been properly discharged and denied his application on 8 August 1973.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070208C070402
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 | 2003083527C070212
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.