Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070003856C071029
Original file (20070003856C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        2 October 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070003856


      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.

|     |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano          |     |Director             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Ann M. Campbell               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann            |     |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 that his discharge be upgraded to [general
under] honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states his discharge should be upgraded because of
medical problems he sustained while in Vietnam.  He has post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD), a condition sustained while in Vietnam.  He feels
that he should have been medically checked for this illness prior to being
discharged.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an
applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations
if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.
While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided
in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a
substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is
granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the
applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are
insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 November 1969.

3.  On 2 December 1969, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP)
under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for going from
his appointed place of duty without authority.

4.  The applicant completed basic combat training and advanced individual
training and was awarded military occupational specialty 70A (Clerk).

5.  The applicant’s records show he was absent without leave (AWOL) from
    8 May through 2 June 1970 and from 8 through 9 August 1970.

6.  The applicant arrived in Vietnam on or about 19 October 1970.

7.  On 5 February 1971, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ
for being absent from his unit from on or about 10:00 a.m. 4 February 1971
to on or about 10:45 a.m. 5 February 1971.

8.  On 16 April 1971, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for
sleeping at his post as sentinel.

9.  On 12 May 1971, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for
disobeying a lawful order from his superior noncommissioned officer.

10.  On 21 August 1971, the applicant was convicted, in accordance with his
pleas, by a special court-martial of wrongfully appropriating a 3/4-ton
truck, of wrongfully appropriating a 5-ton truck, of absenting himself from
his place of duty, and of two specifications of sleeping at his post as
sentinel.  His approved sentence was confinement at hard labor for 4 months
(that the amount in excess of 35 days is suspended for 4 months), and a
reduction to private, E-1.

11.  The applicant departed AWOL on 3 September 1971 and returned to
military control on 17 October 1971.  On 17 November 1971, the suspended
portion of his court-martial sentence was vacated.

12.  The applicant departed AWOL on 9 December 1971 and returned to
military control on 5 February 1972, upon which he was transferred to the
U. S. Army Correctional Training Facility, Fort Riley, KS.

13.  On 26 January 1973, the applicant was convicted, in accordance with
his plea, by a special court-martial of being AWOL from on or about 13
April to on or about 4 October 1972 and from on or about 13 November to on
or about
15 November 1972.  He was sentenced to be discharged with a bad conduct
discharge, to perform extra duties for 30 days, and to forfeit $200.00 pay
per month for two months.

14.  On 8 March 1973, the applicant was placed on excess leave pending
completion of appellate review.  The appellate review is not available;
however, Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division (Airmobile) and Fort
Campbell Special Court-Martial Order Number 76, dated 2 July 1973, shows
that the applicant’s sentence to a bad conduct discharge was affirmed.

15.  On 30 July 1973, the applicant was discharged, pursuant to his
sentence by court-martial, with a bad conduct discharge.

16.  Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1552(f) states that, with respect to
records of courts-martial tried or reviewed under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice, the Board's action may extend only to action on the
sentence of a court-martial for purposes of clemency.

17.  Army Regulation 635-200 governs the separation of enlisted personnel.
Paragraph 3-7b 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.  The applicant’s contention that his discharge should be upgraded
because of medical problems, i.e., PTSD, he sustained while in Vietnam has
been considered.  However, the applicant has failed to submit any evidence
that he has been diagnosed with PTSD as a result of his military service.

2.  In addition, the applicant’s misconduct started before he even arrived
in Vietnam, when he accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ while in basic
combat training for going from his appointed place of duty without
authority and when he went AWOL from 8 May through 2 June 1970 and from 8
through 9 August 1970.

3.  Trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses
charged.  Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with
applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately
characterized the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__amc___  __lmd___  __jcr___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.




                                  __Ann M. Campbell____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070003856                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20071002                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |BCD                                     |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19730730                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.       |105.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080001521

    Original file (20080001521.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Evidence of record shows that the applicant received two Article 15s, that he was convicted by special court-martial, that he was confined by civil authorities, and that he was AWOL on nine separate occasions.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007030

    Original file (20140007030.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). He stated that considering the applicant's Vietnam service and the absence of any civilian offenses, he requested the applicant receives the appropriate discharge. Despite a court-martial conviction and two instances of Article 15 for being AWOL, the applicant went AWOL a third time.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015480

    Original file (20060015480.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 31 May 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060015480 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. The applicant's records contain Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division Support Command (Airmobile) Special Court-Martial Order Number 56, dated 5 August 1971, that vacated suspension of the unserved portion of 4 months...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018298

    Original file (20140018298.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to a fully honorable discharge. 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060095C070421

    Original file (2001060095C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered the following evidence: On 12 November 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded 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:

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000404

    Original file (20130000404.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He served in Vietnam from 21 November 1971 to on or about 24 June 1972. On 13 August 1973, consistent with the chain of command recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial and directed his reduction to the lowest enlisted grade, if applicable, and issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He was discharged accordingly on 21 August 1973.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075699C070403

    Original file (2002075699C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board considered the following evidence: A soldier will not necessarily be denied an honorable discharge solely by reason of a specific number of convictions by court-martial or actions under the UCMJ Article 15. The evidence of record shows the applicant did not complete the Tank Commanders Course.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016900

    Original file (20140016900.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. The regulation stated in: a. The applicant's contentions were carefully considered; however, the evidence of record shows he reenlisted in the RA for assignment to Vietnam.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005197

    Original file (20090005197.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 15 May 1973, the applicant’s immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-206 for misconduct, conviction by civil court. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140021629

    Original file (20140021629.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 11 February 1974, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge and determined he was properly discharged. 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...