| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn. | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Hubert O. Fry | Member | ||
| Ms. Marla J. Troup | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that some of his service was honorable. He claims that he has had a stroke and he needs to get into the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He initially entered the Regular Army on 16 October 1970. He was successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Lewis, Washington. Upon completing of AIT, he was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman).
The applicant served in Europe until December 1971, at which time he was reassigned to the Republic of Vietnam (RVN). On 15 October 1972, he was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. On 16 October 1972, he reenlisted for six years.
The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows that he was promoted to specialist four (SP4) on 7 May 1971, and this was the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty. He was reduced to private first class (PFC) on 1 May 1972, and again promoted to SP4 on 15 October 1972. On
26 March 1974, he was reduced to private/E-1 (PV1), which is the rank he held at the time of his separation.
Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) of the applicant’s DA Form 20 shows that during his tenure on active duty he earned the National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, and Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with
60 Device. The record documents no significant acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition.
The specific facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not on file in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). However, the record does reveal a disciplinary history that includes 28 April 1972 special court-martial conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon.
On 9 October 1973, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand from his unit commander for being dismissed from the Noncommissioned Officers Academy for disciplinary reasons.
On 25 October 1973, a DA Form 268 (Report of Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions) was completed on the applicant. This document confirms that the applicant attempted to wrongfully obtain services from an Army Medical Center on 27 September 1973.
A TAMC Form 108 (Request for Mental Health Consultation) on file shows that the applicant’s unit commander requested the applicant be seen in connection with his separation processing under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200. This document indicates that the applicant’s actions were unbecoming a soldier and he could not be depended upon to accomplish any mission. The unit commander also indicated that the applicant had been counseled on his duty performance and personal problems on many occasions, but to no avail.
On 6 April 1974, the applicant received an UD after completing 1 year, 5 months, and 21 days of his current enlistment, and a total of 3 years, 5 months, and
21 days of active military service. The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to him on the date of his separation confirms he held the rank of PV1 and he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of unfitness. The applicant signed this document in Item 29 (Signature of Person Being Separated), thereby confirming that the information contained in the separation document was correct at the time it was prepared.
The record gives no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15 year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-200, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13, in effect at the time, provided for the separation of members for unfitness for frequent incidents of a discreditable nature and shirking. 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 applicant’s contentions that he had good service and that he is now in need of VA medical care. However, the Board finds his service was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an upgrade to his discharge, and while his medical condition is regrettable, it alone is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.
2. The specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge processing are not on file. However, the record does contain a properly constituted separation document that was authenticated by the applicant with his signature on the date of his discharge. This document contains the authority and reason for the applicant’s discharge, and the Board presumes government regularity in the applicant’s separation processing.
3. Lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, it finds that the character of the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service. Therefore, the Board concludes that an upgrade to his discharge is not warranted at this time.
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.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__FE__ __HOF___ __MT __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003086192 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/06/17 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1974/04/06 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Unfitness |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003590C070206
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on the date of his discharge confirms he completed 2 years and 9 days of creditable active military service. On 24 May 1973, after having carefully reviewed the applicant’s record and the issues he presented, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) concluded the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable, and it voted to deny his request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080553C070215
The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant at the time confirmed that he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu of court-martial, and accordingly was assigned an SPD code of 246. It also stipulates that a bronze service star is authorized with this award for each campaign a member was credited with while serving in the RVN. Therefore, the Board concludes that it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s separation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009843
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The DD Form 214 issued to the FSM on 4 April 1973, the date of his discharge, confirms he was separated UOTHC under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. Records show the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on should have been discovered on 4 April 1973, the date of the FSM's discharge, and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080002481
His record does reveal a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on two separate occasions and three separate court-martial convictions. A GD or HD could be issued by the separation authority if warranted by the member's overall record of service. The applicants separation document confirms he was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 13, Army Regulation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060735C070421
The applicant’s military records show that he served on active duty in the USMC for 4 years, from 6 June 1966 to 5 June 1970, at which time he was honorably separated at the expiration of his enlistment. Although not entered in his DA Form 20, the applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains a copy of General Order Number 681, dated 30 April 1972, which confirms that at the completion of his tour in the RVN he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004172C070208
The applicant’s disciplinary history includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on the following two dates for the offense(s) indicated: 29 April 1972, for being AWOL from 30 March through 17 April 1972 and 25 September 1972, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time. On 3 April 1973, the applicant was discharged accordingly. On 14 February 1985, the Army Discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089566C070403
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that rank on his DD Form 214 indicates PV1; however, his discharge certificate lists his rank as SP4. However, the evidence of record confirms that the applicant was reduced from the rank of SP4 to the rank of PV1 on 2 December 1982, as a result of a summary court-martial sentence. Further, he authenticated the DD Form 214 with his signature, thereby verifying that the information contained therein, to include his rank, was correct at the time the document was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003592C070208
Therefore, it would be appropriate to account for this service in Items 18f and 19 of his DD Form 214. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief and to excuse failure to timely file. The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020436
His military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army in the rank/grade of private (PV1)/E-1 on 5 April 1968, for 3 years. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), then in effect, provided that an honorable discharge was a separation with honor. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provided that a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010207C080407
Stone | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant states, in effect, that he is requesting an upgrade of his discharge for health reasons. The evidence of record further shows the applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in his receiving a punitive discharge.