| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. G. E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded to general.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was having marital, family, and psychological problems following his return from his tour in Vietnam. He states that he was unable to cope with the differences in attitude stateside and went AWOL (absent without leave) when his company commander did not authorize leave for him to go home to assist his wife.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant’s enlistment documents contain a police report showing that prior to entry the applicant had, as a minor, been arrested for theft, burglary, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, vagrancy, speeding, and possession of beer as a minor.
The applicant, at age 24, entered active duty on 30 October 1967. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training with award of the military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).
In March 1968 the applicant requested assignment near his wife due to complications arising from her pregnancy.
The applicant served in Vietnam with Company B, 3rd Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division from 12 April 1968 through 6 February 1969. He was promoted to pay grade E-4 in October 1968 and his conduct and efficiency were rated as excellent during this period.
The applicant was AWOL or in confinement for the following periods: 5 April 1969 through 20 May 1969, 6 June 1969 through 9 June 1969, 22 September 1969 through 21 October 1969, and 10 February 1970 through 29 June 1970.
A special court-martial, on 7 August 1969, found the applicant guilty of two periods of AWOL, and by a second special court-martial, on 14 July 1970, for a third period of AWOL.
The applicant’s discharge packet is not of record.
The applicant was discharged on 30 July 1970, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, with a characterization of service as under other than honorable. He is shown to have had 1 year, 11 months, and 16 days of creditable service with 285 days lost.
The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer of Discharge) lists his awards as the Purple Heart, the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, the Combat Infantryman Badge, and the Sharpshooter Badge with Machinegun and Rifle Bars.
The applicant’s record contains a 12 October 1970 request for information from the Oklahoma State Penitentiary indicating that the applicant had been convicted of a felony and was incarcerated at that time.
In support of his request the applicant submits two personal statements from his sisters. Both sisters state that following his return from Vietnam he was different; more aggressive, paranoid, abusive and became involved with drugs. One sister describes the applicant has having become a career criminal and both state that he has been in trouble with the law almost constantly since his discharge. They blame his Vietnam experience for his problems and believe he has been treated unfairly. One believes that he suffers post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
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 Board notes the applicant’s 10 months of combat service in Vietnam, with award of the Purple Heart; but it finds these factors are not so meritorious as to outweigh the offenses that led to his discharge.
2. While the applicant’s sisters state that he was completely changed following his return from Vietnam, it is noted that the applicant had been committing serious civil offenses prior to entrance onto active duty and that this pattern of behavior has continued since his discharge.
3. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record.
4. 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.
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.
| CASE ID | AR2002083186 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030821 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | Upgrade of discharge 110.02 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024434
Charges were preferred against the applicant at Fort Riley on 17 March 1971 for being AWOL from 9 October 1969 to 18 September 1970 and 20 October 1970 to 25 February 1971. On 27 June 1977 the applicants discharge was reviewed by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) under the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) which voted to upgrade his undesirable discharge to a general discharge based on his previously-issued honorable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, states a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080009874
The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general, under honorable conditions or honorable discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 18 August 1969. However, there is no evidence that indicates that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service.
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 | 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070002755
This Army regulation also provided, in pertinent part, that an individual separated by reason of unfitness will be furnished an undesirable discharge certificate, except that an honorable or general discharge certificate may be awarded if the individual being discharged has been awarded a personal decoration or if warranted by the particular circumstances in a given case. However, the individual would normally receive an undesirable discharge from the military service. Moreover, the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083983C070212
The applicant went AWOL while assigned to the MHC. He had completed 1 year, 2 months, and 4 days of active military service and he had 328 days of lost time due to being AWOL and in military confinement. There is no evidence the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge under that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003043C070208
He completed 3 years and reenlisted for six years, but the Army was never his way of life. He stated that if he were returned to duty, he would definitely go AWOL again to be with his family. The evidence of record further confirms that the applicant was separated for misconduct based on his being AWOL for a period of more than one year.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089242C070403
The Board considered the following evidence: EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 1 May 1970, the applicant was discharged accordingly.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077641C070215
The applicant requests, in an undated letter received on 1 July 2002, that the Board reconsider his previous application wherein he asks that his General Discharge (GD) be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge (HD) by reason of medical disability, and that he be provided back pay and allowances -- ostensibly for a disability retirement -- dating to 9 January 1969. Copies of VA (Veterans Administration) medical records from 11 January 1984 and 15 July 1985 showing diagnoses of generalized...