BOARD DATE: 27 May 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130015863
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, in effect, an upgrade of his undesirable discharge.
2. The applicant states he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from his service in Vietnam.
3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).
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 5 April 1968 for a period of 3 years. He served as an engineer equipment repairman in Vietnam from 23 September 1968 to 26 August 1969.
3. Records show he was absent without leave (AWOL) from:
* 4 February to 3 March 1970
* 10 March 1970 to 22 October 1971
4. His records are void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge action. However, his discharge orders and DD Form 214 show he was discharged under other than honorable conditions for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial on 28 October 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, separation program number 246 (discharge for the good of the service). He completed 1 year, 10 months, and 15 days of creditable active service and accrued 519 days of lost time.
5. There is no evidence of record showing he was diagnosed with PTSD or any mental health condition prior to his discharge.
6. There is no evidence that shows 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.
a. 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 Certificate would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. Chapter 10 of the version currently in effect is essentially unchanged.
b. 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.
c. 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 contends he was suffering from PTSD from his service in Vietnam. However, there is no evidence of record and he provides no such evidence that shows he was diagnosed with PTSD or any mental health condition prior to his discharge in 1971.
2. The applicant's records are void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge. It appears that he was charged with the commission of an offense 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 admitted guilt and 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. Furthermore, in the absence of evidence showing otherwise, it must be presumed his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.
3. In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant an honorable or a general discharge.
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) AR20130015863
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130015863
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
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 | 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 | CY2011 | 20110002238
BOARD DATE: 6 September 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110002238 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge. Since the applicant's drug abuse and reaction to combat stressors were known at the time of his discharge, it must be presumed that these were taken into consideration when the applicant's request for discharge was approved.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010971
The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge with restored benefits. On 27 April 1971, he consulted with counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel). There is no evidence and he has not provided any evidence to show PTSD caused his misconduct and/or that he sought counseling/medical treatment...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021938
On 22 April 1987, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. A review of the applicant's military service records failed to reveal any evidence that he was diagnosed with PTSD or any other mental condition. The fact that the applicant previously provided documents from the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Psychiatry Clinic, more than 30 years after he was discharged from military service provides insufficient evidence for upgrading his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022004
On 8 January 1973, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for 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 DD Form 214 he was issued at the time shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with an Undesirable Discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019817
Evidence shows he was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 10 July 1972. Evidence shows he was awarded a clemency discharge in 1975 pursuant to PP 4313 of 16 September 1974. His record of service included three NJP actions (one received prior to his arrival in Vietnam) and 216 days of time lost due to being AWOL.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008288
The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, 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. 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,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025577
The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. On 18 May 1972, he 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 evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge to honorable.
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. ...