| Mr. | Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Ms. | Karen L. Wolfe | Member | |
| Mr. | James P. Huber | Member |
| Mr. | Loren G. Harrell | Director | |
| Mr | Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that if a draft dodger can be elected President, he has a right as a U.S. citizen to have his discharge upgraded; that he was given his discharge prior to any action being taken; and that he has had physical problems for 30 years and wants compensation.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 29 June 1966 the applicant entered the Regular Army for a period of 4 years at age 20. He completed basic training at Fort Knox, Kentucky, and attended advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
The applicant's record of service is void of any significant acts of achievement, valor, or service meriting special recognition. However, there is an extensive record of disciplinary infractions which include: two special court-martial convictions and one acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ. Additionally, the applicant had been in civil confinement on one occasion for 2 days and military confinement twice for a total of 210 days.
On 13 September 1966 the applicant accepted an NJP for being AWOL between 11 and 13 September 1966. His punishment for this offense was 14 days of restriction to the company area.
On 24 February 1967 the applicant was tried by special court-martial for being AWOL from 2 through 30 January 1967. His sentence was confinement at hard labor for 6 months; forfeiture of $65.00 per month for 6 months; and to be reduced to the rank of private/E-1.
On 29 November 1967 the applicant was again tried by special court-martial for being AWOL from 2 July through 25 October 1967. He was found guilty and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months.
On 17 January 1968 the applicant’s unit commander advised the applicant of his intention to initiate action to separate him ,under the provisions of
AR 635-212 for unfitness, based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civilian and military authorities. The commander cited as his reasons for the recommendation the applicant’s three periods of AWOL; two special court-martial convictions; and the applicant’s acceptance of an NJP.
On the same date the applicant consulted counsel and completed his election of rights by making the following elections: to waive his right to consideration of his case before a board of officers; to waive his right to personal appearance before a board of officers; to waive representation by counsel; and he elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.
Also on 17 January 1968 the unit commander forwarded his recommendation to separated the applicant for unfitness, and in an undated 1st endorsement the first intermediate level commander recommended approval of the separation action and recommended he receive a UD.
On 25 January 1968 the appropriate authority approved the discharge and directed the applicant receive a UD. Accordingly, on 12 February 1968 the applicant was discharged after completing 7 months and 17 days of active military service, and accruing 357 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.
On 23 August 1984 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed the applicant's records and denied an upgrade of his discharge.
Army Regulation 635-212, 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. The Board found the evidence of record does not support the applicant’s contentions; in addition, the Board found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious action on the part of the chain of command. However, there is a preponderance of evidence to suggest that the reason for and the character of the discharge are commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
2.. 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.
3. 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 | 9709683
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 | 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 | CY1996 | 9608812C070209
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The resultant punishment was forfeiture of $20.00 per month for 2 months and to perform hard labor without confinement for 3 months. On 9 November 1973, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicants request for an upgrade to his discharge and found that the discharge process was proper in all respects.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707261C070209
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 Board considered the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709683C070209
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 Board considered the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710655
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 | CY1997 | 9710380C070209
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 | CY1997 | 9711121
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 | CY1997 | 9710655C070209
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 Board considered the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705473
However, the medical evidence of record indicates that the applicant was medically fit for retention/separation at the time of his separation. Since the applicant's medical condition was not medically unfitting for retention at the time of his discharge, in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501, there was no basis for medical retirement or separation. The applicant was afforded all rights associated with the discharge and the character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's...