| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Gale J. Thomas | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his discharge should be upgraded to allow him to receive Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits. He also feels that he was absent without leave (AWOL) because during his time in Vietnam he was unable to sleep because he stayed up all night on duty, and when he returned from Vietnam he could not do state side duty any more, and could not make the nine o’clock bed checks, he just wanted to be alone and out. In support of his request the applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 214, the Department of Veterans Affairs determination that his military service did not entitle him to VA benefits, and miscellaneous letters from 1992 seeking an upgrade of his discharge.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 August 1968, for a period of two years. He completed basic combat training at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and advanced individual training at Fort Lewis, Washington. He served in Vietnam from March to August 1969.
He was promoted to pay grade E-2 and E-3 on 8 November 1968 and 26 March 1969, respectively.
Between March 1969 and October 1969 he received four nonjudicial punishments under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent without leave (AWOL), and for being disrespectful to a superior noncommissioned officer. His punishments included forfeitures and reductions.
On 3 April 1970, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 17 November 1969 to 17 November 1970. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for three months, reduction to E-1, and a forfeiture.
Between 5 January 1969 and 13 December 1970, the applicant was absent without leave for 253 days, under military confinement for 58 days, and under civilian confinement for 62 days.
When charges were preferred, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, and voluntarily submitted a request for discharge, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He was advised of his rights and indicated he understood the possible ramifications of an other than honorable conditions discharge.
On 5 January 1971, a physical examination cleared the applicant for separation.
On 4 February 1971, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s request and directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.
On 16 February 1971, the applicant was discharged under the above cited regulation. His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) indicates he had 1 year, 5 months and 9 days of creditable service, and 373 days of lost time.
Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of that regulation provided, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. At the time of the applicant’s separation, the regulation provided for the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.
On 25 February 1986, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.
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 voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.
2. The applicant chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial. There is no evidence of an error or injustice that would warrant granting his request.
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 that 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
__FNE __ __MHM__ __KAH __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003088388 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030916 |
| 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. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081200C070215
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 | CY2002 | 2002074953C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110005104
The applicant states: * he served honorably for over 3 years * his DD Form 214 showed he had lost time from February 1968 through November 1969 and he was in Vietnam at that time * he now realizes that being absent without leave (AWOL) was not the course he should have chosen 3. His records do not show that he ever petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge. __________X___________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070016108
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge, and that his records be corrected to show that he was discharged in the pay grade of E-4. He states that he does not understand how he could be reduced to the pay grade of E-1 without being convicted by a court-martial. 360 144.0000/ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE 2.
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 | CY2014 | 20140010306
The applicant states he was in Vietnam for 1 year. On 14 June 1971 after consulting with counsel, he submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. On 26 July 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050006387C070206
The applicant's records also show he served in Korea during the period 17 August 1968 through 31 May 1969. On 21 June 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The applicant contends his under other than honorable conditions discharge should be upgraded because he honorably served thirteen months in Vietnam and Korea.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100001C070208
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. The application submitted in this case is dated 12 August 2003.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025262
The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general under honorable conditions discharge. However, his DD Form 214 for the period ending 13 March 1973 shows he was administratively discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, separation program number (SPN) 246, discharge for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial, with issuance of a DD Form 258A (Undesirable Discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001297
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. He goes on to state that his discharge was based on one incident in more than 2 years of a relatively clean record. 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 boards 15-year statute of limitations.