IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150003657 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____x___ ____x___ ___x_____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150003657 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150003657 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 general under honorable conditions. 2. The applicant states, in effect: * he was told to quit * he is a Vietnam veteran * he became a drunk when he came back from Vietnam * he ended up in prison and his whole world went to hell * he needs his discharge upgraded for medical benefits 3. The applicant provides a letter from his Member of Congress, dated 15 June 2015. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 December 1965 for a period of 3 years. On 18 April 1967, he was honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment. He reenlisted on 19 April 1967 for a period of 6 years. 2. He served as a cook in Vietnam from 2 December 1967 to 26 December 1968. On 2 November 1968, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for wrongfully appropriating a fuel tanker, violating a lawful general regulation, and demonstrating drunk and disorderly conduct while in uniform. 3. On 5 September 1969, NJP was imposed against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 1 August 1969 to 5 August 1969 and from 18 July 1969 to 29 July 1969. 4. On 24 October 1969, the following charges were preferred against him for: * wrongfully appropriating a 1/4-ton truck * being AWOL from 3 November 1969 to 19 November 1969 * destroying military property by shattering seven windows and a light globe 5. Trial by special court-martial was recommended. 6. On 9 December 1969 after consulting with counsel, he 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. He indicated he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, he might be deprived of many or all Army benefits, he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, and he might be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws. He also acknowledged he understood he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an undesirable discharge. He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 7. On 8 January 1970, the separation authority approved his voluntary request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 8. On 26 January 1970, he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He completed 3 years, 8 months, and 10 days of total active service with 151 days of lost time. 9. There is no evidence showing he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 10. The applicant died on 21 July 2015. REFERENCES: 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 3-7b 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: 1. The applicant requested an upgrade of his discharge in order to receive VA medical benefits. However, the character of a discharge is not changed solely for the purpose of qualifying an applicant for veterans' benefits. Each application is considered based on its individual merits. 2. His voluntary request for separation for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, was administratively correct and conformed with applicable regulations. He had an opportunity to submit a statement wherein he could have voiced his concerns; however, he elected not to do so. 3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for discharge were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. 4. His record of service included two NJPs, 151 days of lost time, and serious offenses for which special court-martial charges were preferred against him. His service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) @#!CASENUMBER 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150003657 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2