Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605914C070209
Original file (9605914C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his records be corrected to show that his discharge was under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES:  That, “in doing what was to me Honorable became Dishonorable to another”.  He provides 3 letters in support of his request. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

On 8 September 1965, he enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).

On 20 September 1965, he requested a hardship discharge based on his father’s medical condition.

On 3 November 1965, the command disapproved his request because he “failed to substantiate undue and genuine hardship conditions which would warrant release from active military service”.

On 8 January 1966, he was advanced to pay grade E-2.

On 14 March 1966, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent without leave (AWOL) for the period 12 February-    11 March 1966.  His punishment was a reduction to pay grade E1, a forfeiture, and restriction.

On 21 June 1966, he was convicted by a Special Court-martial (SPCM) for being AWOL for the periods 15 March-15 April and 15 April-6 June 1966.  His sentence included confinement at hard labor (CHL) for 6 months and a forfeiture for a like period.

On 18 January 1967, he was convicted by a SPCM for violating the conditions of his parole on or about 20 August 1966.  His sentence included CHL for 6 months and a forfeiture for a like period.

On 9 November 1967, a psychiatric evaluation cleared the applicant for separation.

On 15 November 1967, he was convicted by SPCM for AWOL for the period 4 May-27 October 1967.  His sentence included CHL for 6 months and a forfeiture for a like period.

The unit commander advised him of his recommendation to separate him under Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness and of his rights.

On 6 December 1967, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant acknowledged the commander’s action; waived consideration of and personal appearance before a board of officers; elected not to submit statements in his own behalf; and, declined legal counsel.

On 6 December 1967, the appropriate separation authority directed his discharge because of unfitness and that he be furnished a Undesirable Discharge (UD) Certificate.

On 13 December 1967, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, with a UD, under the above cited regulation.  His Report of Separation indicates that he had 9 months and 8 days of creditable service and 518 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 6a(1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness.  A UD was normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:


1.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant’s discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record.

3.  In view of the applicant’s numerous acts of indiscipline, it does not appear that his UD was inappropriate.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT          

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057684C070420

    Original file (2001057684C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant’s official military records show that he was AWOL from 26 September to 6 December 1966. On 29 August 1967, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness with a discharge UOTHC.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069983C070402

    Original file (2002069983C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered the following evidence: He believes that his PTSD symptoms are related to the rape incident in Vietnam. He had completed 11 months and 18 days of active military service.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074694C070403

    Original file (2002074694C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 3 March 1964, while assigned to Fort Carson, Colorado, the applicant reenlisted in the RA for 6 years in pay grade E-3. SPCM Order Number 15, provided by the applicant, shows that, on 1 August 1966, the appropriate authority determined that the specifications and charges promulgated in SPCM Order Number 26, dated 19 July 1966, did not allege an offense, because it did not contain the words "without proper authority." Specification 2 contains the phrase and indicates that he was charged...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090117C070212

    Original file (2003090117C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was AWOL from his unit from 30 November-2 December 1964. The applicant was AWOL from his unit from 10 June-11 July 1967. The applicant's hysterical personality was determined not to be in the line of duty and existed prior to service.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | 20060003329

    Original file (20060003329.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 26 April 1968, the separation authority approved the separation action on the applicant and directed that he receive an UD. The applicant's contention that his overall record of service, and post service good conduct support an upgrade of his discharge, and the supporting documents he submitted were carefully considered. The evidence confirms the applicant had an extensive disciplinary history throughout the time he served, which included the time he served in the RVN.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064909C070421

    Original file (2001064909C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the Board found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050014118

    Original file (20050014118.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    David K. Hassenritter | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076276C070215

    Original file (2002076276C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. He stated that had he known what a discharge under other than honorable conditions would mean to his future, then he would never have accepted the discharge and would have served his sentence in confinement instead. On 12 June 1969, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-212,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008190

    Original file (20090008190.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 August 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090008190 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. There is no evidence of record and the applicant provides no evidence to show why his discharge should be changed to a hardship discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001272C070206

    Original file (20050001272C070206.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 November 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050001272 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. On 17 May 1967, he was discharged with an undesirable discharge and a characterization of service as under conditions other than honorable after completing 8 months and 25 days of creditable active service. The U.S....