RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: DECEMBER 21, 2004
DOCKET NUMBER: AR2004105892
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 |
| |Ms. Deyon D. Battle | |Analyst |
The following members, a quorum, were present:
| |Mr. Fred Eichorn | |Chairperson |
| |Mr. Paul M. Smith | |Member |
| |Ms. Semma E. Salter | |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 undesirable discharge be
upgraded to a general discharge.
2. The applicant states that he should have been discharged through
medical channels because he could not cope with the stress of being in
Vietnam. He states that all of his medical records were removed when he
returned to the United States during his first period of enlistment. He
states that he reenlisted and that he was returned to Vietnam when others
went to Canada and were later granted amnesty.
3. The applicant provides no additional documentation in support of his
application.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice, which
occurred on 28 April 1970. The application submitted in this case is dated
11 March 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 limitation 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. On 1 June 1964, he enlisted in the Army in Cleveland, Ohio, for 3 years
in the pay grade of E-1. He successfully completed his training as a
pioneer. He was promoted to the pay grade of E-2 on 29 September 1964 and
to the pay grade of E-3 on 1 February 1965.
4. On 12 September 1966, he was transferred to the Republic of Vietnam
where he remained for 1 year, 8 months and 11 days. He returned to the
Continental United States on 24 May 1967.
5. He was honorably released from active duty on 26 May 1967, as an
overseas returnee and he was transferred to the United States Army Reserve
Control Group (Reinforcement) to complete his reserve obligation. He had
completed 2 years, 11 months and 26 days of total active service.
6. He reenlisted in the Army, in Cleveland, Ohio, for an additional 3
years on 8 December 1967. He was transferred to the Republic of Vietnam on
19 July 1968. He returned to the Continental United States on 18 July
1969.
7. The applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) on 2 October 1969 and he
remained absent until he was apprehended by civil authorities; returned to
military control on 13 April 1970; and placed in pretrial confinement. At
the time of his return to military control, he was asked why he went AWOL
and he stated that he “could not take the Army”.
8. The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are
not on file. The Report of Transfer or Discharge, DD Form 214, indicates
that the applicant was discharged on 28 April 1970, under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu
of trial by court-martial. He had completed 4 years, 10 months and 3 days
of total active service and he had approximately 194 days of lost time due
to AWOL and confinement. He was issued an Undesirable Discharge
Certificate.
9. A review of the available records fail to show that the applicant was
suffering from any mental or physical problems while he was in the Army
that would have warranted his being process out through medical channels.
10. On 30 June 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the
applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. It appears that the type of discharge directed and the reasons
therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
2. Although the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s
discharge are unavailable for review, the evidence of record shows that he
went AWOL and that he remained absent for approximately 194 days prior to
being apprehended by civil authorities.
3. The fact that he believed that he “could not take the Army” was and
still is not a sufficient justification for going AWOL and there is no
evidence in the available records to substantiate his contention that he
should have been separated from the Army through medical channels.
4. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the
discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations
applicable at the time. The character of his discharge appears to be
commensurate with his overall record of service.
5. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show 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.
6. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 30 June 1982; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 29 June 1985. However, 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
fe______ ses _____ pms_____ 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.
_____Fred Eichorn___
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
|CASE ID |AR2004105892 |
|SUFFIX | |
|RECON | |
|DATE BOARDED |20041221 |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE |UD |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE |19700428 |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY |AR 635-200 |
|DISCHARGE REASON |CHAPTER 10 |
|BOARD DECISION |DENY |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
|ISSUES 1. 689 |144.7000.0000/FTGS IN LIEU OF CM |
|2. 651. |144.6300.0000/PROLONGED AWOL |
|3. | |
|4. | |
|5. | |
|6. | |
-----------------------
[pic]
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021986
He departed Vietnam in the pay grade of E-4 on 5 May 1969 for assignment to Fort Carson, Colorado. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations. Accordingly, his punishment was not disproportionate to the offenses for which he was convicted and he has failed to show sufficient evidence or reasons to warrant an upgrade of his discharge based on clemency.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072639C070403
In 1972, he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) requesting that his discharge be upgraded to either an honorable discharge by reason of hardship or medical disability. The ADRB determined that there was no evidence of error or injustice in his case and denied his application on 7 August 1972. The ADRB also determined that he had been apprehended by civil authorities after both periods of AWOL and that he had not submitted his application for hardship discharge as he asserted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018002
Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Military Awards), in effect at the time, provided that the Army Good Conduct Medal was awarded to individuals who have completed a qualified period of active duty enlisted service. The evidence of record shows he served in Vietnam from on or about 23 September 1969 to 22 September 1970; therefore, he served a qualifying period for award of the Vietnam Service Medal and is entitled to correction of his DD Form 214 to show this award. As a result, the Board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010906
The applicant's DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he was discharged on 29 October 1974 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, with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. The evidence of record shows that the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | AR20080001530
However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge. However, the evidence of record shows that he went AWOL on three separate occasions and that he had approximately 206 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement. In regard to the applicant's contention that he was discharged from Fort Riley, Kansas, his record shows that he was at Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, in pre-trial confinement at the time of his discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050017368C070206
However, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 6 July 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service with issuance of an under other than honorable conditions (undesirable) discharge. He completed 4 years, 10 months and 2 days of active military service during the period under review. There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) within its 15-year statute of limitations.
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 | CY2013 | 20130016428
The applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of his earlier request that his discharge be upgraded to a more favorable discharge that will qualify him for benefits. There is no evidence in the available record to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations. The last group could apply to a Presidential Clemency Board which was made up of individuals appointed by the President (members were...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130005994
However, his record contains a DD Form 214 for the period ending 26 January 1972 that shows he was discharged 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. There is also no evidence the applicant applied for a hardship discharge during his active duty service. Chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070002768
The applicant provides a copy of a DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), with an effective date of 12 April 1970; Baltimore City Health Department, Bureau of Vital Records, Certification of Birth - Short Form, Number 83###, dated 14 October 1964; National Personnel Records Center, Military Personnel Records, St. Louis, Missouri, letter, dated 23 May 2005; 2 Standard Forms (SF) 89 (Report of Medical History), dated 12 April 1970 and 15 August 1967;...