| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Shirley L. Powell | Member | |
| Mr. Robert L. Duecaster | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: He has suffered mental anguish and depression as a result of his discharge.
In support of his request, he submits two statements which attest that he sometimes has a severe loss of memory, he has mood swings, and he talks, sweats and jumps in his sleep. These statements also relate that the applicant had a nervous breakdown in 1976 and has not been the same since.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 August 1969, was awarded the military occupational specialty of aircraft electrician, and was promoted to pay grade E-4.
He was assigned to Vietnam on 23 April 1970.
The applicant was absent without leave twice, once from 20 December 1970 to 5 January 1971, and once from 6 to 8 July 1971. He accepted nonjudicial punishment for both offenses.
He departed Vietnam on 26 March 1971 and was assigned to a unit in the continental United States.
On 15 September 1971, the applicant was hospitalized for an overdose of heroin. During his hospitalization, the applicant reported that he had used heroin intravenously prior to going to Vietnam, he smoked heroin in Vietnam, and he used heroin intravenously several times a week since his return from Vietnam.
The applicant was treated for the overdose and was offered admittance at a drug treatment clinic, for which he initially expressed interest. However, he later declined admittance at the drug treatment clinic.
Subsequently, the applicant was voluntarily admitted to the drug treatment clinic.
On 10 January 1972, the Commander, Headquarters Command, United States Infantry Center, Fort Benning, Georgia, stated that he interviewed the applicant and reported “that at this point [the applicant] does not feel that he can ever again be a productive soldier.”
Thereafter, the applicant submitted a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial for the good of the service. That request was countersigned by his military counsel.
His request was approved by the appropriate authority and he was given an undesirable discharge on 28 January 1972. He had 2 years, 4 months and 10 days of creditable service, and 20 days of lost time. He had no awards for meritorious service or valor.
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 undesirable discharge.
The Manual for Court-Martial, Appendix 12, Maximum Punishment Chart, lists Article 112a, Unlawful Use, Possession, etc., of Controlled Substances, heroin use, as having a maximum allowable sentence of a Dishonorable Discharge or Bad Conduct Discharge, 5 years confinement, and total forfeiture of pay.
The Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge on 1 March 1973.
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 committed a court-martial offense for which a Dishonorable Discharge was authorized.
2. The applicant himself stated that he could never again be a productive soldier, and requested discharge.
3. As such, there is no error or injustice to correct in this case.
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
___slp___ ___rld___ ___fne___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003085032 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20031007 |
| 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. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067631C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 27 March 1975, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for civil conviction with an undesirable discharge. There is no evidence of record to show he was wounded in action.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068421C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Information available to the Board indicates that the applicant’s original petition to the Board was denied on 12 February 1975. A 17 January 1973 clinical record prepared at Kimbrough Army Hospital at Fort Meade, Maryland, shows that the applicant was admitted to the hospital on 17 December 1972 and discharged from that hospital on 20 December 1972.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064390C070421
APPLICANT STATES : That his service was honorable, but his immaturity and lack of intelligence caused him to make an error by requesting a discharge (for the good of the service). He requested a discharge. It also noted that the applicant was treated for a drug problem and was hospitalized from 7-20 January 1972 for drug abuse, then assigned to an artillery unit at Fort Benning, granted leave on 8 February 1972 and failed to return, his period of AWOL commencing on 3 March 1972.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03091469C070212
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE : That report indicated that he used heroin in Vietnam and had experimented [with drugs] in the United States. The evidence clearly indicates that the applicant did all that he could to be discharged from the Army, that he was not concerned with the type of discharge that he would receive, nor any consequences that would derive from a less than honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9706100
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 to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110022752
The applicant states he was incarcerated in Vietnam and was seen by counsel who advised him to request a chapter 10 discharge. On 15 January 1975, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge and determined his discharge was both proper and equitable. At the time, he understood Soldiers who sought help for their drug problems would receive amnesty and was surprised to learn the applicant received a less than honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100024230
On 2 February 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed the issuance of an undesirable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. _______ _ X______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9706100C070209
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 to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
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 | 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.