DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
CRS
Docket No: 6281-02
26 December 2002
From:
To:
Subj:
Ref:
Encl:
Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
Secretary of the Navy
RECORD OF
(4
ii;
(3)
10 U.S.C. 1552
DD Form 149 w/attachments
Case Summary
Subject's naval record
1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a
former enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1)
with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be
corrected to show a more favorable type of discharge than the
general discharge issued on 21 July 1977.
2. The Board, consisting of Mr.
Suiter, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice
on 26 November 2002 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined
that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the
available evidence of record.
the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and
applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
Leeman, Mr. Beckett, and Ms.
Documentary material considered by
3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining
to Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice finds as
follows:
a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all
administrative remedies available under existing law and
regulations within the Department of the Navy.
b. Although it appears that enclosure (1) was not filed in
timely manner, it is in the interest of justice to waive the
statute of limitations and review the application on its merits.
c. Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps on 10 May 1967 at
age 19.
At that time, he had completed nine years of formal
education and attained test scores that placed him in Mental
Group IV.
d. Petitioner served in Vietnam from 3 December 1967 to 16
June 1968 and from 5 April to 25 May 1969.
in action and received two Purple Hearts.
He was twice wounded
The record indicates
that both of Petitioner's periods of Vietnam service were
terminated due to hospitalization resulting from his wounds.
e. The record reflects that Petitioner received three
nonjudicial punishments and was convicted by a summary
martial.
87 days.
Petitioner was in Vietnam.
court-
The offenses included unauthorized absences totalling
None of the foregoing misconduct occurred while
f. On 22 July 1970 Petitioner submitted a written request for
an undesirable discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial
for an unauthorized absence of 122 days.
His record reflects
that prior to submitting his request for discharge he consulted
with legal counsel and was advised of his rights and warned of
the probable adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge.
Subsequently, his request was granted.
Petitioner received an undesirable discharge.
On 14 August 1970
g. On 21 July 1977 the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB),
the enabling statute of the NDRB,
acting under the provisions of the Special Discharge Review
Program (SDRP) and 10 USC 1553,
changed Petitioner's characterization of service to general by
reason of good of the service to escape trial.
126 Congress withdrew veteran's benefits from those individuals
whose discharges were recharacterized under the provisions of the
SDRP.
In this regard, benefits would only been granted if the
discharges were recharacterized using traditional standards by
the discharge review boards or the boards for correction of
military records.
and decline to take any further favorable action.
The NDRB then re-reviewed Petitioner's case
In Public Law 95-
h. Although the action of the NDRB under SDRP does not entitle
Petitioner to receive benefits administered by the Department of
Veterans Affairs (DVA),
he would be entitled to such benefits if
this Board confirms the SDRP action under the provisions of its
enabling statute, 10 USC 1552.
CONCLUSION
:
The Board initially notes Petitioner's youth and
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the
Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable
action.
immaturity, limited education and low test scores.
further notes that although Petitioner committed numerous
offenses, he served in Vietnam, was twice wounded in action, and
committed no misconduct while serving in this combat zone.
The
Board further notes the recharacterization of service by the NDRB
under the SDRP.
However, this action does not entitle Petitioner
to veteran's benefits.
Board concludes that no useful purpose is served by continuing to
deny Petitioner veteran's benefits.
justify further recharacterization of Petitioner's service to
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Although the Board cannot
The Board
2
fully honorable, the Board does believe that the record warrants
confirmation of his general discharge in order that he may be
granted such benefits.
In view of the foregoing,
injustice warranting the following corrective action.
the Board finds the existence of an
RECOMMENDATION:
a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that
his discharge of 21 June 1977 has been characterized as a general
discharge pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552 vice 10 USC
1553.
b. That a copy of this Report of Proceedings be filed in
Petitioner's naval record.
c. That, upon request;
the Veterans Administration be informed
that Petitioner's application was received by the Board on 17
July 2002.
4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's
review and deliberations,
and that the foregoing is a true and
complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled
matter.
A
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Recorder
Acting Recorder
5 . Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section
6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of
Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(e))
and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby
announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the
authority of reference (a),
has been approved by the Board on
behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.
3
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08623-09
08623-09 28 May 2010 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records | To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD or @ Ref: (a} 10 U.S.c, 1552 Encl: (1) Case Summary (2) Subject’s naval record 1. Ms. ees: renee reviewed Petitioner’s allegations Of error an 010 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that he received a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 03714-00
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. Pursuant to reference (a) a review of enclosure (1) was conducted to form opinions about the subject petitioner's claims that he suffered fiom Post Traumatic Stress Disorder at the time of his service and that this was a significant contributing factor to the misconduct that lead to his discharge. The misconduct that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01211-01
Your A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, 25 July 2001. reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. However, you continued to serve and were advanced to LCPL You reported to duty in Vietnam on 5 October 1968. On 28 August 1970 the discharge authority directed You were Prior to submitting this request court- The record further reflects that on 20 June 1977 the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075637C070403
He turned himself in twice as a drug abuser; however, he failed to remain off drugs. Upon review, the ADRB determined that the applicant's discharge did not qualify for upgrading under the new uniform standards for discharge reviews. The ADRB determined that the applicant's discharge did not qualify for upgrading under the new uniform standards for discharge reviews.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06363-07
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.The Board found that you enlisted in the Marine Corps on 15 November 1968. Your request was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004982
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 AR20080005743 on 11 June 2008. The SDRP stipulated that all former service members who received undesirable or general discharges during the period 4 August 1964 through 28 March 1973, were eligible for an upgrade review under the SDRP. The ADRB stated: The Board voted unanimously not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002609
The applicant states he is a Vietnam veteran and had been receiving VA benefits. Army Regulation 635-200 also provided for a general discharge under honorable conditions for an individual whose military record was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. On 17 June 1977, the ADRB upgraded the applicants discharge from an undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge under the DOD SDRP based on a mandate contained in the established DOD SDRP criteria concerning...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120003552
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests affirmation of the upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge under the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP). On 18 May 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) voted to upgrade the applicant's undesirable discharge to a general discharge under the provisions of the SDRP.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007796
He was denied benefits by the VA because his letter and form did not show the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) had changed the status of his discharge to honorable. On 13 June 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded the applicant's discharge to an honorable discharge under the SDRP. However, his discharge was subsequently upgraded in 1977 to an honorable discharge and in 1978 his honorable discharge was affirmed; three different DD Forms 215 were...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2151-13
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. On 29 July 1970, you submitted a written request for a good of the service discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial for two periods of UA totaling 181 days. Your request for discharge was granted and on 11 August 1970, you received an undesirable discharge for the good of the service in lieu...