| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast | Member | |
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by upgrading his general discharge under the provisions of the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his discharge should have already been changed.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the Memorandum of Consideration prepared to reflect the consideration of Docket Number AC94-11555 by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) on 21 December 1994. The ABCMR denied the application based on failure to timely file.
The applicant provided a copy of a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214), prepared on 18 September 1978, which amended item 27 on his DD Form 214 to show, "DISCH [DISCHARGE] REVIEWED UP [UNDER PROVISION] PL [PUBLIC LAW] 95-126 AND A DETERMINATION MADE THAT CHARACTERIZATION OF SERVICE WAS WARRANTED UP DOD [DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE] SDRP 4 APR 77."
The applicant also provided a letter, dated 8 April 2003, from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). This letter indicates that the applicant was notified on
22 March 1979 that his undesirable discharge from military service on 14 April 1969 was issued under conditions which constitute a bar to the payment of DVA benefits. The DVA acknowledged that the applicant's undesirable discharge was upgraded to general under the DOD SDRP on 14 June 1977. The DVA also acknowledged that on 21 August 1978 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), as required by Public Law 95-126, did not affirm the applicant's upgraded discharge under the DOD SDRP. Therefore, the applicant's discharge remains a bar to the payment of DVA benefits.
The applicant’s submissions are new evidence which will be considered by the Board.
The Department of the Army SDRP was based on a memorandum from Secretary of Defense Brown and is often referred to as the "Carter Program." It mandated the upgrade of individual cases in which the applicant met one of several specified criteria and when the separation was not based on a specified compelling reason to the contrary. The ADRB had no discretion in such cases other than to decide whether recharacterization to fully honorable as opposed to a general discharge was warranted in a particular case. An individual who had received a punitive discharge was not eligible for consideration under the SDRP.
Absentees who returned to military control under the program were eligible for consideration after they were processed for separation. Individuals could have their discharges upgraded if they met any one of the following criteria: wounded in action; received a military decoration other than a service medal; successfully completed an assignment in Southeast Asia; completed alternate service; received an honorable discharge from a previous tour of military service; or completed alternate service or excused therefrom in accordance with Presidential Proclamation 4313 of 16 September 1974. Compelling reasons to the contrary to deny discharge upgrade were desertion/absent without leave in or from the combat are; discharge based on a violent act of misconduct; discharge based on cowardice or misbehavior before the enemy; or discharge based on an act or misconduct that would be subject to criminal prosecution under civil law.
Public law 95-126, enacted on 8 October 1977, provided generally, that no DVA benefits could be granted based on any discharge upgraded under the Ford memorandum of 19 January 1977, or the DOD SDRP. It required the establishment of uniform published standards which did not provide for automatically granting or denying a discharge upgrade for any case or class of cases. The services were then required to individually compare each discharge previously upgraded under one of the special discharge review programs to the uniform standards and to affirm only those cases where the case met those standards.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.
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. 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.
2. The applicant’s administrative separation in 1969 was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
3. The applicant’s undesirable discharge was upgraded to general under the SDRP on 14 June 1977.
4. The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included one special court-martial, two nonjudicial punishments and 309 days of lost time and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge.
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
AAO____ ECP____ REB_____ DENY APPLICATION
Carl W. S. Chun
| CASE ID | AR2003089853 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | Yes |
| DATE BOARDED | 20031113 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19690414 - UD upgraded to GD by Special Discharge Review Board on 19770614 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0200 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120003552
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests affirmation of the upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge under the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP). On 18 May 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) voted to upgrade the applicant's undesirable discharge to a general discharge under the provisions of the SDRP.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001891
The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions, which was upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) in June 2008, be affirmed. On 5 July 2007, the ADRB approved the applicants request for an upgrade of his discharge and upgraded his discharge to a general discharge, under honorable conditions. As such, there is no basis for the ABCMR to affirm the applicant's upgraded discharge because...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011250
The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 11 April 1977, the applicant submitted a request for an upgrade of his discharge under the SDRP. On 8 November 1977, the applicant was notified by the President, ADRB that: * his discharge upgrade could not be affirmed under standards required by Public Law 95-126 * his discharge may impact his ability to acquire VA benefits 12.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020771
The applicant requests that his general discharge be affirmed. After consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service. Evidence shows that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time and that the ADRB later upgraded the applicant's discharge from an undesirable discharge...
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 | CY2010 | 20100012172
The applicant requests upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. This program, known as the DOD Discharge Review Program (Special) (SDRP) required, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, that a discharge upgrade to either honorable or general be issued in the case of any individual who had either completed a normal tour of duty in Southeast Asia, been wounded in action, been awarded a military decoration other than a service medal, had received an honorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004982
Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20080005743 on 11 June 2008. The SDRP stipulated that all former service members who received undesirable or general discharges during the period 4 August 1964 through 28 March 1973, were eligible for an upgrade review under the SDRP. The ADRB stated: The Board voted unanimously not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020939
The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to honorable. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The ADRB reviewed his discharge as required by law and granted him an upgrade of his discharge to a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015414
The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. However, the applicant's records contain a DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) that shows he was discharged on 23 April 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service with a character of service of under conditions other than honorable and issued an Undesirable Discharge...