| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann Langston | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Linda D. Simmons | Member | |
| Mr. Robert Duecaster | Member |
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to upgrade his undesirable discharge.
2. The applicant states that he was not given proper medical treatment when he was wounded in Vietnam so he went absent without leave (AWOL). This is a new argument that will be considered by the ABCMR.
3. The applicant provides a Certificate of Appreciation, dated February 1991, and five character reference letters.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AC93-07418 on 1 September 1993.
2. A Casualty Report, dated 19 September 1968, shows the applicant was slightly wounded in Vietnam on 17 September 1968 as a result of hostile action. He received a fragment wound to the right arm and was treated and hospitalized in Vietnam.
3. On 20 October 1968, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for failure to repair.
4. On 19 December 1968, the applicant was reported for being AWOL. He was returned to military control on 20 April 1973.
5. On 16 July 1973, after consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. He elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf.
6. The applicant underwent a separation physical examination on 4 May 1973 and was found qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111111.
7. 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. At the time, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.
8. 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.
9. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. There is no evidence of record, and the applicant has provided no evidence, which shows that he did not receive proper medical treatment when he was wounded in Vietnam. He had an opportunity to submit a statement in which he could have voiced his reason for AWOL and he failed to do so. Medical evidence of record shows the applicant was found qualified for separation prior to his voluntary request for discharge.
2. Letters of support submitted by the applicant attest to his good post service conduct and achievements. However, good post service alone is not a basis for upgrading a discharge.
3. The applicant's record of service included one nonjudical punishment and 1394 days of lost time. As a result, his record of service was not satisfactory. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to a general discharge.
4. The applicant's record 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.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
JL______ LDS____ RD______ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003090111 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | 19930901 |
| DATE BOARDED | 20031120 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19730727 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 Chapter 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | For the good of the service |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0200 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013383
On 16 March 1971, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, paragraph 33, with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. On 27 December 1985, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his characterization of service and determined he had been properly and equitably discharged. He received NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, a conviction by court-martial, he had an extensive record of lost time...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016690
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 2 April 1971, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. On 2 June 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for a discharge upgrade.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001481
The applicant states he honorably served in Vietnam and he received traumatic brain injuries (TBI). On 12 April 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. In fact, his military service was marred by misconduct prior to, during, and after his service in Vietnam.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130010729
On 26 October 1973 after consulting with counsel, the applicant requested 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 8 November 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The applicant argues,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021301
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 28 February 1973, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be issued a DD Form 258A (Undesirable Discharge Certificate). The Delayed Registration of Birth, issued by the State of California, as provided by the applicant, indicates that the applicant had submitted as evidence his "Honorable Discharge, U.S.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070012191
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge (GD), upgraded by the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP), be changed to an honorable discharge. When separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record. This program, known as the DOD Discharge Review Program (Special) (SDRP) required, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, that a discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070009274
The applicant's documentation showing approval of his request for discharge is unavailable for review; however, his DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged on 6 February 1970 and was furnished an undesirable discharge, characterized as UOTHC, in pay grade E-1. On 28 September 1978, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge. The evidence shows that the applicant voluntarily requested discharge, for the good of the service, under the provisions...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140021086
In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged UOTHC and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050008709C070206
On 17 December 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued an undesirable discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 19 December 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013421
On 14 November 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicants request for an honorable discharge. The applicants record of service included 1534 days of lost time due to AWOL and desertion. Since the applicant was separated under a regulatory provision that authorized a characterization of discharge of under other than honorable conditions (i.e. undesirable discharge), it does not appear he was eligible for physical disability processing.