2. In effect, the applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
3. The applicant enlisted in the Army on 22 October 1948 and was separated with an honorable discharge on
29 November 1951 at Pine Camp, New York. His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation) shows receipt of the Good Conduct Medal. He had 3 years, 1 months, and 8 days of service.
4. The applicant reenlisted on 30 November 1951. On
17 January 1955 a board of officers met to determine the applicants suitability for retention or discharge from the Army. The applicant was present during the board proceedings and was represented by counsel. Testimony before the board revealed that the applicant had numerous periods of AWOL, had missed formations and bed check, and had a drinking problem. The applicant had four convictions by courts-martial for AWOL. Testimony also revealed that the applicant was a good worker.
5. The Board determined that the applicant was unfit for further military service, recommended that he be discharged from the Army because of unfitness, and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 28 January 1955 the separation authority approved the findings of the board.
The applicant was discharged on 18 August 1955 under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 because of unfitness.
He had 2 years, 2 months, and 17 days of service and 549 days of lost time.
6. Army Regulation 615-368, then in effect, set forth the
policy and procedures for separation of enlisted
personnel for unfitness. Unfitness included, in
addition to misconduct and repeated petty offenses,
habits and traits of character manifested by antisocial
or amoral trends, chronic alcoholism, criminalism, drug
addiction, pathological lying, homosexuality, sexual
perversion, habitual shirking, and repeated venereal
infections. Action to separate an individual was to be
taken when, in the judgment of the commander,
rehabilitation was unsuccessful, impractical or was
unlikely to produce a satisfactory soldier. When
separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable
discharge was normally considered appropriate.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at that time. The applicants separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. The overall quality of the applicants last period of service does not warrant recharacterization of his discharge. However, in view of the honorable nature of his prior enlistment, his honorable discharge on
29 November 1951 should be considered a complete and unconditional separation. To do otherwise would work an injustice upon him by depriving him, or his heirs, of consideration for certain VA benefits for his honorable period of service.
3. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions and in recognition of his previous years of good service, it would be appropriate and proper to consider his honorable discharge on 29 November 1951 as a complete and unconditional separation from the military service.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned received a complete and unconditional separation from the military service at the time of his honorable discharge on 29 November 1951.
2. That so much of the application as in excess of the foregoing be denied.
BOARD VOTE:
GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
CHAIRPERSON
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608594C070209
After hearing all evidence, the board voted to separate the applicant with a UD. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 27 January 1958.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9610964C070209
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: The applicant was inducted into the Army on 28 October 1952. The testimony of the board proceedings indicates that the applicant was not interested in doing his job, had a poor attitude, and was lax in his military duties. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019683
The FSM's complete military records are not available to the Board for review. On 12 February 2013, the ABCMR considered his petition for a discharge upgrade but found no evidence of error or injustice and denied his request. The regulation stated that discharge, if recommended, would be for unfitness, except that discharge because of unsuitability (under Army Regulation 615-369 (Enlisted Personnel - Discharge - Inaptitude or Unsuitability)), without referral to another board, might be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001307
On 28 June 1953, the FSM's unit recommended a board of officers be convened to determine whether the FSM should be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Personnel - Discharge - Unfitness). The certificate, dated 12 June 1953, issued by the Psychiatry and Neurology Service, USAH, Camp Atterbury, essentially stated: * the FSM's diagnosis was anti-social personality manifested by immaturity, impulsive behavior, lack of adequate standards of behavior, and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066548C070402
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He recommended that the applicant be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010738
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded. The applicant had already exceeded the 15-year statute of limitations to petition the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge when he submitted his DD Form 293 to that board on 12 June 2006. Individuals discharged under this regulation would normally be issued an UD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061279C070421
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. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: However, there is no evidence of record, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support this contention.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006705
Also on 12 May 1952, the applicant's immediate commander requested a board of officers be convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Men - Discharge - Unfitness (Undesirable Habits or Traits of Character)) for the purpose of determining the applicant's fitness for retention due to his habitual AWOL. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The board found him unfit for retention and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065688C070421
In April 1955 the applicant appeared before a board of officers who recommended he be discharged for unfitness with an undesirable discharge. On 13 May 1955 the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by issuing the individual concerned a DD Form 214 for the period 23 January 1951 through 25 October 1953 which reflects...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008088
The applicant, the widow of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. There is no evidence the FSM applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.