MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 6 May 1998
DOCKET NUMBER: AC97-07056
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 following members, a quorum, were present:
Analyst
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.
The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. 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 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: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that after arriving in Germany he met a girl; that he later discovered that girl was dating a lieutenant in his battery; that the lieutenant threatened to have him kicked out of service; and from that point on things slowly went downhill. He further states he was young, immature, and hardheaded at the time of the incidents, but feels he has matured.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 17 March 1959 he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years. At the time of his enlistment he was 17 years old, and had completed 9 years of formal education.
He completed one station unit training (OSUT) at Fort Chaffee, Arkansas. Upon completion of advanced individual training he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 140 (Field Artillery) and assigned to Germany.
On 17 July 1959 he was promoted to the rank of private first class (E-3).
On 8 February 1960 a Line of Duty Investigation (LODI) was held to determine if the applicants fall through a glass roof of a building was in the line of duty. It was determined that the applicants fall was not in the line of duty and not due to misconduct on his part.
Between 27 February and 19 September 1960 he accumulated the following: one nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ; three summary courts-martial; two special courts-martial; two periods of confinement at hard labor; five forfeitures totaling $550.00 and accrued a total of 95 days of lost time.
On 12 October 1960 his commanding officer initiated action to have him discharged from the Army for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 due to his one NJP and four courts-martial for serious infractions of military discipline.
After being counseled by his commanding officer, he authenticated a statement with his signature in which he acknowledged notification of his commanders intent, declined representation by legal counsel, and declined a board of officers hearing.
On 7 December 1960 the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge. Accordingly, on 7 January 1961 the applicant was discharged from the Army after completing 1 year, 6 months, and 18 days of active military service and accruing 95 days of lost time.
Army Regulation 635-208, then in effect, provided in pertinent part the policies, procedures, and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unfit for further military service. Individuals discharged under this regulation would normally be issued a UD.
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 provided no evidence that his age or level of maturity impaired his ability to be a good soldier or that he was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.
3. The evidence of record indicates the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself according to Army standards by providing him counseling, summary and special courts-martial, and a rehabilitative transfer to another unit. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts.
4. The applicant by continuing his pattern of misconduct and poor duty performance left his commanding officer no choice but to initiate separation action.
5. 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
Loren G. Harrell
Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199707056
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 | CY2002 | 2002068792C070402
On 31 October 1960, the applicant was recommended for separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 with a UD. On 8 December 1960, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's discharge with the issuance of a UD. The Board concluded that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073902C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 1 December 1960, the applicant’s unit commander submitted a request that the applicant be eliminated from service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208. The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to and authenticated by the applicant on the date of his separation confirms that he was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, by reason of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079621C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 29 March 1961, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation to discharge the applicant with a UD. The record does not support, and the applicant has not presented any evidence that he was told that his discharge would automatically be upgraded.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085224C070212
On the same date, the applicant's squad leader indicated in a written statement that the applicant had goofed off on most details for the past 6 months. During his prior period of enlistment, he completed 4 years, 3 months and 12 days of active military service. On 12 October 1964, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071344C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 8 November 1960, the commander requested that the applicant go before a board of officers to determined whether the applicant should be discharged prior to expiration of his term of service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness. On 9 May 1967, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079534C070215
The board of officers recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 because of unfitness with an undesirable discharge. On 20 January 1960, the separation authority approved the board findings and directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 with an undesirable discharge. Records show the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness –...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088024C070403
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. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077695C070215
The applicant was released from confinement on 10 August 1960 pursuant to the modification of the sentence announced in Special Court-Martial Order Number 5, Headquarters, US Army, Hawaii, dated 9 August 1960, which directed that so much of the earlier approved sentence in excess of confinement at hard labor for 1 month and forfeiture of $43.00 per month for 1 month was set aside. The applicant was discharged on 30 January 1961 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208. DISCUSSION :...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100798C070208
The unit commander also states the applicant was good at performing those duties that he was assigned most of the time and that there appeared to be nothing wrong with him physically or mentally. The applicant may have performed assigned tasks well most of the time, even so, his personal conduct and attitude rendered both his conduct and efficiency rating unsatisfactory and he received no awards. The Board concludes that the applicant has provided no evidence to establish a basis for the...