| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Rosa M. Chandler | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In essence, that the characterization of his service be changed from "under other than honorable conditions" and the undesirable discharge (UD) that he was issued be corrected to show he received a fully honorable discharge or a general discharge under honorable conditions.
APPLICANT STATES: In essence, that he was uneducated, young and immature when he was given the opportunity to reenlist. He was then allowed to take 30 days of leave; he went home and made a bad decision.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
At age 17 years and 8 months, he enlisted on 21 May 1970 in the Regular Army (RA) for 3 years with a declaration of parental consent signed by his mother. Following completion of all required military training, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman) and ordered to Vietnam. The applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) from 17 - 23 October 1970, but there is no record of punishment. He arrived in Vietnam on/about 31 October 1970 and was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 506th Infantry.
While assigned to Vietnam, the applicant reenlisted on 8 March 1971 for a period of 3 years in his present duty assignment, in MOS 11B, and in pay grade E-3. He was given a reenlistment leave outside of Vietnam. When he failed to return, he was declared AWOL on 10 April 1971. He was returned to military control at the Personnel Control Facility (PCF) at Fort Jackson on 12 May 1971, but he went AWOL again from 28 May - 1 June 1971. The record is unclear, but on an unknown date, while he was AWOL, he was apprehended by civil authorities for charges of possession of narcotics and breaking and entering. The civilian charges were dropped; the applicant was returned to the PCF and the commander preferred court-martial charges against him.
The court-martial charge sheet is no longer a matter of record, but on 2 June 1971, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200. He was advised that he could receive a UD. He acknowledged that he understood the ramifications of receiving a UD. He also declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 4 June 1971, the applicant's commander recommended that the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service be disapproved and that he be tried by a special court-martial. The intermediate commander also recommended disapproval and trial by a special court-martial.
On 15 June 1971, the Staff Judge Advocate recommended approval of the applicant's request. On the same date, the separation authority approved separation under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200 with a UD.
On 23 June 1971, the applicant was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200 with a UD. He had completed 2 months and 10 days of active military service on the enlistment under review and he had 38 days of lost time due to being AWOL. He had also completed 9 months and 10 days of active military service on a prior period of enlistment.
On 19 February 1975, as a result of a records review, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. On 9 September 1977, the ADRB denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge under the Department of the Defense Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP).
AR 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 a 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. 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.
2. The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for discharge were appropriate considering the facts of the case.
3. The applicant was AWOL from a combat zone and he has provided no mitigating circumstances for this absence. This is a serious offense which together with his overall quality of service does not warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
4. The Board has taken into consideration the applicant’s contention that he was young and immature, however, he met entrance qualification standards, to include age with parental consent and he honorably completed a period of service and reenlisted. Further, the Board found no evidence that he was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation.
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.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__fne___ __mhm___ __kah___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003083912 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030916 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19710623 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, Chap 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A60.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.6000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088580C070403
The applicant is requesting correction of an error or injustice which occurred on 30 September 1976, the date his undesirable discharge (UD) was upgraded to a GD by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB). At the time of the applicant's separation, a UD or a GD was appropriate. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087253C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In essence, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. The applicant's DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he was also AWOL 7-8 June 1971, there is no evidence that he was punished or charged with this period of AWOL.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058344C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He was in military confinement from 3 February-29 March 1971. On 1 April 1971, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086229C070212
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: EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000821C070208
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 February 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20040000821 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. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 15 December 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008974
Following consult with legal counsel, the applicant requested discharge 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. Therefore, he was requesting a discharge for the good of the service. On 31 January 1974 and 8 January 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge and determined his discharge was both proper and appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065903C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Department of the Army, Headquarters, United States Army Field Artillery Center and Fort Sill, Fort Sill, Oklahoma, Special Orders Number 340 reflects that the applicant was discharged by board action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service with a UD. It states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076798C070215
On 24 February 1969, he went AWOL and he remained in an AWOL status until he returned to military control at Fort Hood on 6 March 1969. On 30 November 1972, the applicant's chain of command denied his request for separation for the good of the service and indicated that he should be tried by a court-martial authorized to direct a bad conduct discharge. On the same date, the applicant was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088382C070403
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE : On 10 March 1972, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UD. There is no evidence that 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 | CY2002 | 2002076334C070215
The applicant indicates in a separate statement written to the Board that he does not believe that he was treated fairly after he returned from Vietnam; that he achieved the rank of specialist, pay grade E-4, in just 8 months due to hard work and education; that he used drugs; that alcohol and drug use was common among soldiers in Vietnam; that he returned to the United States and learned that he was addicted and that he was never told that help was available; that he was absent without...