RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 26 July 2005
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20040008823
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.
| |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | |Director |
| |Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr. | |Analyst |
The following members, a quorum, were present:
| |Ms. Linda D. Simmons | |Chairperson |
| |Mr. Patrick H. McGann, Jr. | |Member |
| |Mr. Leonard G. Hassell | |Member |
The Board considered the following evidence:
Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.
Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge be
upgraded.
2. The applicant states that he had only just returned from Vietnam and
was still on drugs, which made the discharge unjust at the time.
3. The applicant provides no substantiating documentation.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 27 March 1973. The application submitted in this case is dated
12 October 2004.
2. Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so. In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.
3. The applicant enlisted and entered active duty on 7 December 1970. He
completed training as a communications center specialist and served in
Vietnam from 28 June 1971 to 15 June 1972 at Bien Hoa, near Saigon. While
there he received nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) under the provisions of
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice; once for bringing beer into
the communications center when he reported for duty, absence from his
appointed place of duty and
dereliction of duty by failing to transmit a FLASH precedence message;
again for absence without leave (AWOL) for 10 days; and a third time for
disrespect and refusing a direct order from a staff sergeant.
4. He returned to the United States and was stationed at Fort Huachuca,
Arizona, but was AWOL from 31 August to 27 November 1972. He was convicted
by Special Court-Martial (SPCM) of that offense and assigned to the
retraining brigade at Fort Riley, Kansas where he was processed for
elimination due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with
military or civilian authorities.
5. On 14 March 1973 the commanding officer recommended the applicant be
eliminated for frequent incidents as evidenced by four NJPs, the SPCM
conviction and 23 other incidents that had not been adjudicated.
6. The applicant consulted with counsel and waived his rights to be
represented by counsel, to have his case considered by a board of officers
and to make a statement in his own behalf. He acknowledged that he
understood that a less than honorable discharge would deprive him of
veteran benefits under Federal and state laws and that he could expect to
encounter substantial prejudice in the civilian community.
7. At a mental status evaluation the applicant's behavior was observed to
be normal. He was fully alert and oriented and displayed an unremarkable
mood. His thinking was clear, his thought content normal and his memory
good. The examiner found no significant mental illness. The applicant was
considered mentally responsible. He was found to be able to distinguish
right from wrong and to adhere to the right.
8. The separation authority considered the case and directed that the
applicant be separated with an undesirable discharge.
9. On 27 March 1973 the applicant was separated under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13. He had 1 year 11 months and 25 Days
of creditable service and 143 days lost time. His authorized awards
included the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal with
two bronze service stars and the Vietnam Campaign Medal.
10. On 12 April 1978 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded the
applicant's discharge to general under the provisions of the Department of
Defense (DOD) Discharge Review Program (Special) (SDRP). Subsequently, the
ADRB declined to affirm the SDRP upgrade under historically consistent
uniform standards and so notified the applicant in a 20 June 1978 letter.
He was scheduled to appear at a personal appearance hearing in 1982 but
failed to respond to the scheduling letter and the case was closed.
11. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the policy and prescribes the
procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter
13, in effect at that time, applied to separation for unfitness and
unsuitability. At that time, paragraph 13-5a provided for the separation
of individuals whose record evidenced frequent incidents of a discreditable
nature with civil or military authorities and other
categories of misconduct or aberrant behavior. When separation for
unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge and characterization of
service as having been served under other than honorable conditions was
normally considered appropriate.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in
compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural
errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were
appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
3. The applicant provided no rationale for his implied argument that drug
abuse somehow mitigated his other misconduct.
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 Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 27 March 1973; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
26 March 1976. The applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of
limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to
show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to
timely file in this case.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__LDS___ __PHM_ ___LGH__ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
1. The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate
the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board
determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis
for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
2. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law. Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.
__ Linda D. Simmons __
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
|CASE ID |AR20040008823 |
|SUFFIX | |
|RECON | |
|DATE BOARDED | |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY |AR . . . . . |
|DISCHARGE REASON | |
|BOARD DECISION |DENY |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
|ISSUES 1. |144.000 |
|2. | |
|3. | |
|4. | |
|5. | |
|6. | |
-----------------------
[pic]
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091230C070212
Counsel requests that the Board grant the applicant an upgrade of his discharge. After consulting with military counsel on 20 September 1973, he requested to appear before a board of officers to determine if he should be retained on active duty. That board recommended that he be eliminated from the service for unfitness under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-4.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070008176C071029
The military records of these individuals were to be reviewed to determine whether there was direct or indirect evidence of compelled urinalysis introduced by the government into the administrative discharge process which resulted in their separation with a less than fully honorable discharge and, if so, the former Army service member was entitled to an honorable discharge 7. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The applicant’s...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004103058C070208
Counsel continues that the first review, dated 30 October 1977, the ADRB voted unanimously to upgrade the applicant's discharge to a general discharge under honorable conditions and informed the applicant. The ADRB's second review of the applicant's general discharge was to determine that the discharge should be affirmed. The ADRB's decision to not affirm the applicant's general discharge was consistent with all applicable laws and regulations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017233
He then served on active duty in the Regular Army from 1962 to 1965 and received an undesirable discharge. The record contains a signed statement by the applicant, dated 19 January 1965, wherein he acknowledged he had been notified that a recommendation was being submitted for his elimination from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness. Eligibility for the program was restricted to individuals discharged with either an undesirable discharge or a general...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000408
The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. However, he would not have met the eligibility criteria to his undesirable discharge upgraded to a general discharge under the SDRP, and his record of service does not warrant upgrading his discharge now.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058887C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : That he received an undesirable discharge in 1972; however, he requested a change to that discharge and his discharge was upgraded to under honorable conditions. On 19 November 1976 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199709470
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 3 February 1972 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied his request to upgrade his discharge. This law, enacted on 8 October 1977, provided generally, that no VA benefits could be granted based on any discharge upgraded under the Ford memorandum of 19 January 1977, or the DOD Special Discharge Review Program.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010099C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) affirm the upgrade of his discharge to under honorable conditions under the Department of Defense (DOD) Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP). The examiner recommended the applicant receive an administrative discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 (Personnel Separations, Discharge, Unsuitability). On 30 June 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067677C070402
On 7 November 1974 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011501
The applicant requests, in effect, that his General Discharge (GD), under the provisions of the Department of Defense (DOD) Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP), be affirmed. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The evidence shows that the applicant had behavioral problems but no mental disorder.