| Mr. Loren G. Harrell | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Ms. Karen J. Newsome | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Member | |
| Mr. John P. Infante | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge under the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he only lost 25 days in his entire career and he was punished for the other incidents (Article 15’s).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
At age 18, he enlisted on 16 July 1956 for a period of 3 years. He trained as a topographic surveyor, served in Japan for 28 months and was honorably discharged in the grade of E-4 on 20 June 1959. After a break in service, he reenlisted on 22 January 1964 for a period of 3 years.
Between 5 August 1964 and 8 June 1965, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on five separate occasions for drunk and disorderly conduct.
On 13 June 1965 NJP was again imposed against the applicant for disorderly conduct and disobeying a lawful order. His punishment consisted of correctional custody for 30 days.
On 27 July 1965 he was convicted by a summary court-martial of breaking restriction. His punishment consisted of 1 month of confinement at hard labor.
On 28 June 1965 the applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation to discharge the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s numerous incidents involving drunkenness and disorderly conduct both in the United States and three foreign countries.
He underwent a psychiatric evaluation and a medical examination on 28 June 1965 and was cleared for administrative separation by both examinations.
The applicant declined the opportunity of requesting counsel and waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers. He also elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.
The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for elimination on
17 August 1965 and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on
2 September 1965 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208. He had served 4 years, 4 months and 21 days of total active service and had 25 days lost time due to confinement.
On 25 August 1976 he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge to honorable. The board proceedings and results are not contained in the applicant’s personnel records. However, it was determined that the ADRB denied his request due to his subsequent application to the SDRP on 20 April 1977.
On 24 May 1977, the applicant’s discharge was upgraded to general under the SDRP. This decision was based on the fact that the applicant met the primary criteria (honorable discharge from a previous tour of military service) and the secondary criteria (record of good citizenship since discharge and he was discharged for alcohol abuse) of the program. On 27 October 1978, as required by Public Law 95-126, the ADRB reviewed the applicant’s case and voted not to change the SDRP discharge.
Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness. Section II of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel for frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.
The Special Discharge Review Program, often referred to as the “Carter Program,” was announced on 29 March 1977. The program mandated upgrade of administrative discharges if the applicant met one of seven specified criteria.
Public law 95-126. This law, enacted on 8 October 1977, provided generally, that no VA benefits could be granted based on any discharge upgraded under the Ford memorandum of 19 January 1977, or the DOD Special Discharge Review Program. It required the establishment of uniform published standards which did not provide for automatically granting or denying a discharge upgrade for any case or class of cases. The services were then required to individually compare each discharge previously upgraded under one of the special discharge review programs to the uniform standards and to affirm only those cases where the case met those standards.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.
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. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
2. The applicant’s discharge was upgraded to general under the SDRP on
24 May 1977.
3. The applicant’s contentions were noted by the Board. However, the Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included 6 NJP’s and
1 summary court-martial and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.
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
___kn___ ___jpi___ __fe ____ DENY APPLICATION
Loren G. Harrell
Director
| CASE ID | AC97-06345 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 1999/01/21 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1965/09/25 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-208 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | NC |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. A00.20 | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199706345C070209
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any) APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge under the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) be upgraded to honorable. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT ________ ________ ________...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199709470
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 3 February 1972 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied his request to upgrade his discharge. This law, enacted on 8 October 1977, provided generally, that no VA benefits could be granted based on any discharge upgraded under the Ford memorandum of 19 January 1977, or the DOD Special Discharge Review Program.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199709470C070209
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 3 February 1972 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied his request to upgrade his discharge. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING __jev____ _mkp ___ __jhk ___ DENY APPLICATION Loren G. Harrell Director INDEX CASE ID AC97-09470/AR1998011427 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 1999/01/27 TYPE OF DISCHARGE UOTHC DATE OF...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080001965
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 April 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080001965 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 1 June 1965, the board of officers found the applicant to be unsuitable for further military service because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities, recommended his discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9708894
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 to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010099C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) affirm the upgrade of his discharge to under honorable conditions under the Department of Defense (DOD) Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP). The examiner recommended the applicant receive an administrative discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 (Personnel Separations, Discharge, Unsuitability). On 30 June 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710380
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 to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010834
X The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 30 June 1965, the applicant was discharged accordingly. Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel who were found unfit or unsuitable for further military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9508468C070209
Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 10c provides, in pertinent part, that reconsideration of a Board decision will be made when additional evidence or other matter including, but not limited to factual allegations or arguments, that were not previously available to the Board has been submitted. 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. The Board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9708894C070209
On 30 March 1970 while in Vietnam the applicant accepted a second NJP for sleeping in his bed while being absent from his guard post. The DD Form 214 documents that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. While the Board is empathetic with the applicants medical problems, the evidence of record shows the applicant was in good health at the time of his discharge, and he was aware of the...