2. The applicant requests that his social security number (SSN) on his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) be corrected from
to
. He also requests, in effect, that his other than honorable discharge be upgraded to honorable. He states that his discharge was unjust, that the Army did not help him with his substance abuse problems, and therefore his behavior was out of control. He finally received the help he needed at a VA hospital and has been sober for over six years. He is now a productive citizen and a licensed substance abuse counselor. If the Army had helped him, he would have been a good soldier.
3. The applicant entered active duty on 12 October 1966. The copy of his social security card, which he submitted with his application, his Enlisted Qualification Record, as well as various documents in his official military personnel file show the last digit of his SSN as
.
4. The applicant completed basic training and was assigned to Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana for advanced training. On
23 February 1967 he received nonjudicial punishment under
Article 15, UCMJ, for AWOL. On 19 May 1967 he received nonjudicial punishment for AWOL from 29 April to 18 May 1967. In August 1967 he was assigned to Hawaii. On 14 November 1967 he received nonjudicial punishment for failure to go to his place of duty.
5. In January 1968 the applicant was assigned to Vietnam.
A 20 May 1968 report of psychiatric evaluation indicates that the applicant had no evidence of drugs or alcohol; there was no evidence of psychosis or neurosis. The applicant had a passive aggressive personality, manifested by anger and impulsive acting out behavior, with a history of impulsive action. The examining psychiatrist opined that the applicant had potential for rehabilitation. The applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings. The applicant met the medical standards for retention in the Army and was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate.
6. On 30 May 1968 he was arraigned, tried, and found guilty by a special court-martial for leaving his place of duty and for drunk and disorderly. On 26 August 1968 he was arraigned, tried, and found guilty by a special court-martial for disobedience of a lawful order, and possession of marijuana.
7. On 5 September 1968 the applicants commanding officer initiated action to separate the applicant for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. The applicant consulted with counsel, stated that he had been advised of the basis for the contemplated action, and that he understood the nature and consequences of the under other than honorable conditions discharge that he might receive. He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.
8. A 6 September 1968 report of medical examination indicates that the applicant was medically qualified for separation with a physical profile of 1 1 1 1 2 1. In the report of medical history the applicant furnished for the examination he stated that he was: In good physical condition.
9. The applicants commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be eliminated for unfitness and that he receive an undesirable discharge certificate. On 24 September 1968 the separation authority approved that recommendation. The applicant was discharged at Oakland, California on 26 September 1968. He had 1 year,
10 months, and 25 days of service, and 20 days of lost time.
10. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 6 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that an individual was subject to separation for unfitness because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities; drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit-forming drugs or marijuana; and an established pattern of shirking. When separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Apparently through administrative error, the applicants
DD Form 214 shows the last digit of his SSN as . vice .. His
DD Form 214 should reflect a SSN of
...
2. The applicants administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
3. The characterization of his discharge is commensurate with his overall record. The Board notes the applicants contentions of his good post service conduct but this is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the relief requested. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request to upgrade his discharge. He has failed to submit evidence that his undesirable discharge was unjust, unfair, or in error.
4. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicants records as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the applicants social security number is
..
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 | CY2004 | 20040008079C070208
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 April 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20040008079 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. The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge and correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608775C070209
He was in confinement from 7 August 1968 until 2 January 1969. On 16 September 1969 the applicants commanding officer recommended that the applicant be discharged for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the undesirable discharge that he might receive.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085244C070212
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. The applicant has not presented and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130006657
A DD Form 398 (Statement of Personal History) completed in conjunction with his induction shows his SSN as "XXX-XX-6344." On 19 September 1967, the applicant's commanding officer recommended his elimination from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness due to his severe record of AWOL and misconduct. _______ _ X ______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110022633
On 3 July 1967, the applicant's unit commander recommended that he be required to appear before a board of officers convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for the purpose of determining whether he should be discharged before the expiration of his term of service for unfitness. The applicant provides a character reference letter from a Veterans Case Manager who states, in effect, he has known the applicant for more than 2 years and attests that the applicant is one of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012576
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge, that his date of birth (DOB) be corrected to show he was born in the month of June, and that the fifth digit of his Social Security Number (SSN) be changed to a 6. 2. His DD Form 214 issued at the time of his discharge reflects that the fifth digit of his SSN is a 0 and that his DOB is 29 January 1947. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511150C070209
The examining psychiatrist stated that the applicant could not be an effective soldier and recommended that he be administratively separated. On 10 January 1969 the separation authority approved the request for discharge and directed that the applicant receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicants overall record of military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065565C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable or general. On 29 January 1968 the applicant’s commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be discharged from the Army and that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006286
c. he was 19 years old and served in Vietnam for 15 months. However, there are no provisions in Army regulations that allow the upgrade of a discharge for the sole purpose of securing veteran's benefits. Records show the applicant was age 20 years at the time of his offenses.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 04101078C070208
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 AUGUST 2004 DOCKET NUMBER: AR2004101078 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. 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. On 17 March 1970 the applicant's...