BOARD DATE: 29 November 2011
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110010170
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 an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge.
2. The applicant states he was discharged under intimidation. He states his poor understanding of the English language and emotional state following his mother's death contributed to the intimidation. He further states the Army did not know what his problems were because at the time there was little known about post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
3. The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), a self-authored statement, and his mother's death certificate.
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 was born on 25 October 1949 and he was inducted into the Army of the United States on 13 May 1969 at 19 years of age. His records show he completed basic combat and advanced individual training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman). He served in the Republic of Vietnam from 18 October 1969 through 13 October 1970. The highest rank/grade he attained while serving on active duty was private first class (PFC)/E-3. However, he held the rank/grade of private (PVT)/E-1 at the time of his discharge.
3. Item 44 (Time Lost under Section 972, Title 10, U.S. Code, and Subsequent to Normal Date Expiration Term of Service) of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he was absent without leave (AWOL) for the period 23 May 1971 through 30 August 1972. Item 38 (Record of Assignments) shows he was confined at the Post Stockade, Fort Dix, New Jersey, on 31 August 1972.
4. The complete facts and circumstances of his discharge are not available for review with this case. However, his record contains a DD Form 214 which shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial on 8 March 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, with an under other than honorable conditions character of service. The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he completed a total of 2 years, 2 months, and 13 days of creditable active service with 702 days of lost time.
5. His record is void of any evidence and he has not provided any evidence which shows he was ever diagnosed with or treated for PTSD or any other mental disorder while serving in the Army.
6. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
7. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial charges were preferred. Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service. Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses charged, the type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of Veterans Administration benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge. An undesirable discharge was considered appropriate at the time the applicant was discharged.
8. 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.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's request to upgrade his undesirable discharge to a general discharge was carefully considered; however, there is insufficient evidence to support his request.
2. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge. It appears that he was charged with the commission of offense(s) punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with a punitive discharge. Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant is presumed to have voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, he waived his opportunity to appear before a court-martial. It is also presumed that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, the applicant's discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.
3. His record is void of any evidence and he has not provided any evidence which shows he was ever diagnosed with or treated for PTSD or any other mental disorder while serving in the Army.
4. The applicant's record of service shows he was AWOL for the period 23 May 1971 through 30 August 1972. Based on this record of indiscipline, the applicant's misconduct rendered his service unsatisfactory. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to a general discharge under honorable conditions.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__x______ ____x___ __x______ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
__________x_______________
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) AR20110010170
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110010170
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011523
On 10 January 1973, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for 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. It is acknowledged he used heroin while serving in Vietnam but evidence shows he voluntarily requested discharge and he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. _______ _X _______...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008226
The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant shows he was separated under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial, and that he received an UD. On 20 February 1975, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), after careful consideration of the applicant's military records and all other available evidence, determined that the applicant's discharge was proper and equitable, and it voted to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021638
If possible, the applicant requests to appear before the Board. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, stated a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. There is no evidence in his military records and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence which shows he was diagnosed with PTSD or any other mental condition at the time of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110005564
The applicant provides: * a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States) * his doctor's medical diagnoses and prescription listing slip CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. However, it does include a DD Form 214 that confirms he was discharged on 9 April 1973, 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. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110022462
However, his discharge orders and DD Form 214 show he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial on 18 February 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. ____________x_____________ CHAIRPERSON I...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110025148
There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-years statute of limitations. 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 discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant's record of service shows he was AWOL for the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010141
The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 7 January 1974, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he receive an undesirable discharge certificate. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007030
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 | CY2013 | 20130015917
BOARD DATE: 4 June 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130015917 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. However, his records contain a DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) which shows he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 5 April 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel),...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009685
Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily 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. The applicant's request to upgrade his discharge under other than honorable conditions to an honorable discharge to presumably receive compensation for his service in Vietnam was carefully considered; however, there is insufficient...