| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Ted Kanamine R | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | ||
| Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his being absent without leave (AWOL) was due to his divorce. He states that was granted a compassionate leave and subsequently returned to complete his tour in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN). He states that he served his country and participated in a combat, and he feels he is deserving of an upgrade to his discharge on those grounds. In support of his application, he submits three letters of support and his separation document (DD Form 214).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 5 December 1967, the applicant was inducted into the Regular Army. He successfully completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 13A (Field Artillery).
The applicant’s 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 first class/E-3. However, does reveal a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudical punishment (NJP) for failure to obey the order of a commissioned officer, and his conviction of being AWOL, from 17 September 1968 to 7 October 1968, by a special court-martial.
The record also shows that the applicant again went AWOL from 27 July 1969 to 19 October 1969. While he was in this AWOL status, he was arrested by civil authorities for the crime of second degree burglary. On 9 September 1969, he was convicted of this office by a civil court in Yakima, Washington.
On 3 November 1969, after failing to report to his new duty station, the applicant was again declared AWOL. He remained away until being returned to military control and was placed in confinement at the Personnel Control Facility (PCF), Fort Lewis, Washington, on 10 December 1969.
On 21 May 1971, while he was still confined, the applicant’s unit commander initiated separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, by reason of civil conviction. After acknowledging receipt of the separation action, the applicant waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived representation by legal counsel, and he elected not to submit statements in his own behalf.
On 14 June 1971, the separation action was approved by the appropriate authority. On 19 June 1971, the applicant was discharged from the Army with an UD. At the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 2 years of creditable active military service, and he had accrued 554 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.
On 15 October 1976, the Army Discharge Review Board determined the applicant’s discharge had been proper and equitable and denied his request for an upgrade.
The letters of support submitted by the applicant attest to his good post service conduct and achievements.
Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 33 of the regulation provided, impertinent part, that members convicted by civil authorities would be considered for separation. 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 contention of the applicant that his discharge should be upgraded due to the circumstances surrounding his being AWOL, based on his record of combat service, and given his post service good conduct. However, it finds these factors are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.
2. The Board is satisfied that the applicant’s discharge was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations in effect at the time, and that his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. Finally, the Board concludes that the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service and was appropriate given his acts of misconduct and undistinguished record of service.
3. 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.
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
KF___ __MM__ _TK_ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003084898 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19710619 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-206. . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Civil Conviction |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 818 | 144.9228 |
| 2. 811 | 144.9221 |
| 3. 841 | 144.9307 |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000664C070205
The applicant was discharged on 24 March 1971, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to his civil court conviction. On 15 November 1973, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge. Paragraph 33 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members convicted by civil authorities would be considered for separation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075790C070403
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. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included one nonjudicial punishment, one special court-martial conviction and 49 days lost time and determined that the quality of service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027876
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD) to a general discharge (GD). In so doing I was AWOL for a period of 14 months.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062508C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 1 October 1969, the Correctional Counselor at the Georgia State Prison, Reidsville, Georgia, informed the applicant's chain of command that he had spoken with the applicant concerning the separation recommendation and that the applicant stated that he did not want to sign any forms or papers and that any action taken by the Army would be acceptable to him. Conviction...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000667C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. 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 shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should commence on the date of final action by the ADRB. As a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012117
Item 22 (Appointments and Reductions) shows that he was promoted to the rank of specialist four (SP4) on 7 January 1969, and that this was the highest rank he held while serving on active duty. On 16 April 1971, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant upon his discharge shows he was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, and that he was issued an UD discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015070
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 6 April 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090015070 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 16 December 1968, the applicant was declared AWOL when he failed to return from a period of reenlistment leave. Paragraph 1-13a stated that an honorable discharge was a separation with honor.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018038
The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD) to an honorable discharge. On 10 December 1968, the applicant's company commander recommended the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations Discharge Misconduct). There is no evidence he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005600C070205
The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged on 28 March 1969, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to his civilian conviction. His only award is listed as the National Defense Service Medal. __ William F. Crain_______ CHAIRPERSON INDEX |CASE ID |AR20060005600 | |SUFFIX | | |RECON | | |DATE BOARDED |20061130 | |TYPE OF DISCHARGE |UD | |DATE OF DISCHARGE |19690331 | |DISCHARGE AUTHORITY |AR 635-206. .
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067372C070402
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. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely...