IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 23 October 2008
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080009620
THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:
1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).
2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request that his discharge be upgraded to honorable or general under honorable conditions.
2. The applicant states that he needs to be able to qualify for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical benefits. He has developed cancer. He was never given an opportunity to rehabilitate from his drug problem. He was a combat veteran and combat-related stress was evident. No professional counseling was available on the front lines.
3. The applicant provides a Disabled American Veterans Contact Brief; a VA Form 21-4138 (Statement in Support of Claim); a VA Form 21-22 (Appointment of Veterans Service Organization as Claimants Representative); a VA outpatient record, dated 19 May 2008; and two DD Forms 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).
COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:
Counsel requests, in effect, that the applicants discharge be upgraded so he may receive medical help.
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 Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20050015193 on 18 May 2006.
2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 October 1969. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 62B (Engineer Equipment Repairman). He was honorably discharged on 22 June 1970 and immediately reenlisted on 23 June 1970.
3. The applicant arrived in Vietnam on 6 November 1971. He was assigned to the 510th Engineer Company; to the 79th Maintenance Company; to the 576th Ordnance Company; and to Engineer Region MR-I, U. S. Army, Vietnam.
4. In a letter from the Commander, Engineer Region MR-I, U. S. Army Vietnam, to the Commanding Officer, U. S. Army Drug Treatment Center, Vietnam, the Commander stated that on 4 July 1972 the applicant was detected as a user of narcotics by his own admission. He reported he had used drugs due to being away from his wife too much. He told the applicant he would be placed under the units drug rehabilitation program with an E-6 remaining with him 24 hours a day until he was admitted to the Drug treatment Center. He was admitted to the drug treatment center on 10 July 1972 and was returned to his unit on 24 July 1972. Upon his return, he stated that the drug treatment center was nothing more than a jail and the drug rehabilitation treatment was not effective. The commander stated the applicant was informed he would be going though an 8-week follow up program and if detected twice more he could be subject to separation. The applicant then tested positive for illegal drugs on 6 July and again on 28 July 1972, but it was conceivable that rehabilitation outside of Vietnam would be successful.
5. The applicant departed Vietnam on 11 August 1972. His discharge packet indicated he was assigned to the Medical Holding Company at Fort Campbell, KY for further rehabilitation.
6. On 19 October 1972, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 11 September through 12 October 1972.
7. On 28 November 1972, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 14, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being AWOL from 17 November through 22 November 1972.
8. On 23 February 1973, charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 20 December 1972 through 10 February 1973.
9. On 2 March 1973, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. He indicated in his request that he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and that he may be deprived of many or all Army benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law. He also acknowledged that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of a discharge under other than honorable conditions.
10. The applicant elected to submit a statement in his own behalf. In this statement, he indicated that he no longer felt that he could do well in the Army because his nerves were bad, and his wife had hardships due to the Army and had left him as a result. He also stated that he had been on drugs for over the past couple of years and he felt that it would help him more to be discharged from the Army.
11. On 26 March 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
12. On 6 April 1973, the applicant was discharged, under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, with an undesirable discharge and a characterization of service of under other than honorable. He had completed 2 years, 6 months, and 18 days of creditable active service and had 88 days of lost time for the period under review.
13. On 11 September 1975, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicants request for a discharge upgrade. In his application to the ADRB, the applicant stated that he had a drug problem, was emotionally unstable, and could not cope with life after his discharge. In September 1973, he was charged with arson and spent seven months in jail.
14. With his current application, the applicant provided a VA Form 21-4138 that indicates he has been diagnosed with a malignant neoplasm cancer secondary to herbicide exposure (Agent Orange).
15. 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 submit a request for a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The requests may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individuals admission of guilt. Army policy states that although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.
16. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, 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, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.
17. Army Regulation 635-200, 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 Soldiers separation specifically allows such characterization.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant contended that he was never given an opportunity to rehabilitate from his drug problem. However, the evidence of record shows that he was given an opportunity to rehabilitate in Vietnam, even if it appears he did not like the program he was sent to. He was given another chance at Fort Campbell, KY. In addition, it is noted that in his statement with his March 1973 request for discharge he stated that he had been on drugs for over the past couple of years. That would have meant he began using drugs prior to arriving in Vietnam; therefore, the stresses of whatever combat he was in would not have been the origin of his drug use.
2. The applicants current medical problems are certainly regrettable; however, they form an insufficient basis on which to upgrade his discharge. The applicant should continue to work with the VA to seek a waiver to obtain the medical benefits he needs for conditions that may have had their origins in his service in Vietnam prior to the misconduct that ultimately led to his undesirable discharge.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
___XX_____ ____XX____ ____XX____ 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20050015193 dated 18 May 2006.
______XXXX_ _ _______ ___
CHAIRPERSON
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080009620
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080009620
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082513C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a more favorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008622
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general discharge. On 14 September 1972, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service and directed the issuance of a UD Certificate and reduction to pay grade E-1.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082728C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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. Except for the father's letter, there is no...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006091
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 3 December 1973, the applicant requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service). The evidence of record also shows the applicant had 216 days of time lost during the period of service under review.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080002348
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states that his discharge should be upgraded based on personal trauma. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110022523
It was recommended the unit initiate separation action under Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability). 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. However, his service record indicates he received four Article 15s for various offenses and was enrolled in an Amnesty Program for drug abuse where he failed to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090324C070212
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 13 August 1975, the applicant submitted a request to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service which includes over 200 days of AWOL, at least five non-judicial punishments, and one court martial conviction in a period of less than three years.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100029173
He noted that the applicant requested to have his case considered by a board of officers. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The fact that a civilian physician has found the applicant to have severe PTSD, as stated in her April 2010 letter, has no effect on the determination made by the Army at the time of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007031
The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge from the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) to honorable due to physical disability. Orders Number D-03-901165, dated 6 March 1984, discharged the applicant, in the rank/grade of private (PV1)/E-1 from the IRR with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. The available evidence of record indicates a board of officers determined in March 1982 that the applicant's unsatisfactory...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024882
The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable or a general discharge. Following consultation with legal counsel, the applicant requested discharge 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. On 21 January 1975, the separation authority approved his request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with...