| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member | ||
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge, as upgraded to general by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), be affirmed by the Board.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his undesirable discharge was upgraded to a general discharge under the Department of Defense Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP); however, when he applied for benefits, he was informed that his discharge is still considered as under other than honorable conditions.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was inducted in Beckley, West Virginia, on 12 February 1969. He successfully completed his training as a light weapons infantryman and received orders to Vietnam, with a report date to the overseas replacement detachment at Oakland Army Base, California, of 15 July 1969.
He failed to report as ordered and was reported as being absent without leave (AWOL). He remained absent until he was returned to military control at Fort Knox, Kentucky, on 3 August 1969. He again departed AWOL on 17 August 1969 and remained absent until he was again returned to military control at Fort Knox on 3 October 1969 and charges were preferred against him.
On 5 November 1969, he was convicted by a special court-martial of the AWOL offenses. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 5 months, a forfeiture of pay and reduction to the pay grade of E-1.
The applicant again went AWOL on 28 November and remained absent until he was returned to military control on 18 December 1969. He was convicted by a special court-martial of the AWOL charge on 16 January 1970 and was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and a forfeiture of pay.
On 20 January 1970, the applicant's commander advised him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness. After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his rights and declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.
The applicant also underwent a psychiatric evaluation and was deemed to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.
The appropriate authority (a major general) approved the recommendation for discharge on 3 February 1970 and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 9 February 1970, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness. He had served 6 months and 1 day of active service and had 181 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement. At the time of his discharge he was advised of the procedures for applying to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge, which he acknowledged by his signature.
On 15 June 1977, the ADRB reviewed the applicant's discharge under the SDRP and voted to upgrade his undesirable discharge to a general discharge.
On 21 April 1978, the ADRB dispatched a letter to the applicant informing him that while his discharge had been upgraded to a general discharge under the SDRP, the ADRB had not affirmed his discharge. He was also informed that he could apply to that board to have his discharge affirmed in order that he may qualify for benefits administered by the Veteran Administration (VA).
On 14 July 1978, the ADRB notified the applicant that his discharge had been re-reviewed by the ADRB as required by Public Law 95-126 and that the ADRB had determined that his discharge did not qualify for upgrading under the new uniform standards for discharge review. Accordingly, his upgraded discharge under the SDRP was not affirmed and thus he would be ineligible for benefits administered by the VA.
Department of Defense SDRP, 5 April 1977, provided for the review of Vietnam era less than honorable discharges in the spirit of compassion. Compelling reasons for upgrade under the primary criteria were the award of a decoration or service medal, wounded in action, satisfactory completion of a tour of duty in
Southeast Asia, receipt of a prior honorable discharge, or completion of satisfactory service of 24 months prior to discharge. Reasons for granting an upgrade under secondary criteria included age, aptitude, education level, alcohol/drug problem, record of good citizenship, etc.
Public Law 95-126 precluded automatic granting of some VA benefits on the basis of upgrading a discharge given under other than honorable conditions by action of the ADRB – SDRP.
Department of Defense Directive, 29 March 1978, announced uniform standards for the review of discharges or dismissals to ensure historically consistent uniformity as required by the provisions of Public Law 95-126.
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 6a(1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness. 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 applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. Accordingly, the type of discharge and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering the facts of the case.
3. The applicant's record of undistinguished service, combined with an excessive amount of lost time and disciplinary record, does not warrant affirming his discharge as upgraded under the SDRP.
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
__jhl ____ ___rks __ ___jm___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003086693 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/07/17 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1970/02/09 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-212 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | UNFIT |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 954 | 144.0020/A00.20 |
| 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 | CY2013 | 20130012295
On 7 July 1977, the FSM was notified that the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered his request under the DOD SDRP and directed that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The ADRB considered his request under the DOD SDRP and directed that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. showing the FSM was separated...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050006954C070206
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 January 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050006954 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. He further states that his discharge was upgraded under the Department of Defense Special Discharge Review Program (DOD-SDRP) but was not affirmed. Evidence shows that the applicant was properly and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001033
The applicant requests, in effect, affirmation of his general discharge under the provisions of the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP). On 1 June 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded the applicant's discharge to general under honorable conditions under the provisions of the SDRP. As a result, his record of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel and there is insufficient basis to affirm his general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011165
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge under the provisions of the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) be upgraded to honorable. On 18 June 1971, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant be furnished an undesirable discharge. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080004963
The applicant's Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows he served in the RVN for 4 months between June and September 1969. On 24 February 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) voted to upgrade the applicant's discharge to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD), under the provisions of the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) and Presidential Proclamation 4313. Notwithstanding the initial upgrade of his discharge under the SDRP based on his service in the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021953
On 2 January 1973, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unfitness and directed the applicant be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 4 April 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) directed the applicant's undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge. In the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, this program, known as the DOD-SDRP, required...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011969
The applicant again applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge under the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) and on 25 May 1977, the ADRB upgraded the applicants discharge to an honorable discharge. On 3 April 1978, the ADRB reviewed the applicants request for affirmation of his discharge under Public Law 95-126 and determined that his record of service did not warrant affirmation. The findings and conclusions of the ADRB in its decision not to affirm the discharge upgrade...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007381
The law further required that uniform discharge review standards be published that were applicable to all persons administratively discharged or released from active duty under other than honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200 provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The ADRB upgraded the applicants discharge from under other than honorable conditions to general under honorable conditions under the DOD SDRP on 16 February 1978...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015162
On 25 May 1977, the ADRB upgraded the applicants undesirable discharge to a general under honorable conditions discharge under the DOD SDRP. The DVA stated three reasons for its decision: (1) under other than honorable conditions discharge on 17 July 1969 constitutes a bar to VA benefits; (2) character of discharge upgraded by DOD SDRP was not affirmed by the ADRB; therefore, cannot pay him benefits; and (3) Public Law 95-126 prohibits payment of VA benefits solely on a discharge upgraded...