APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was young and not able to face his responsibilities; that his AWOLs were minor or isolated offenses; and that he had personal problems that impaired his ability to serve.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 27 September 1966 he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years at age 17.
The applicant's record is void of any significant acts of achievement, valor, or service meriting special recognition. His record contains documentation of only one award, the National Defense Service Medal. However, there is documented evidence that the applicant had a history of disciplinary infractions.
On 28 October 1966 the applicant accepted a nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for violation of Article 86 (i.e., AWOL for 24-25 October 1966). His punishment for the offense was 14 days of correctional custody.
On 30 November 1966 the applicant was tried by a special court-martial for violation Articles 86 and 134, UCMJ, (i.e., AWOL and breaking restriction). He was found guilty of all charges and sentenced to forfeit $60.00 per month for 3 months and to be confined at hard labor for 1 month
On 30 March 1967 the applicant was again tried by a special court-martial for two specifications of violation of Article 86, UCMJ, AWOL (i.e., AWOL for the period 23 January through 14 February 1967, and for the period 16 February through 3 March 1967). The applicant was found guilty and sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 6 months, and to forfeit $60.00 per month for 6 months.
On 13 April 1967 the applicant was notified of his commanders intent to initiate elimination action on him for unfitness, under the provisions of AR 635-212. He consulted counsel, was advised of the basis for the contemplated action, and completed his election of rights.
On 19 April 1967 the first intermediate level commander recommended approval of the elimination action and that the applicant be given a UD. On 10 May 1967 the appropriate authority approved the elimination action; however, he suspended the elimination for six months and indicated that unless vacated sooner the action would be canceled at the end of the suspended period.
On 12 June 1967 the applicant accepted an NJP for another violation of Article 86 (i.e., AWOL for the period 28 May through 6 June 1967).
On 13 June 1967 the applicants unit commander recommended that the suspension of the elimination action be vacated based on the applicant going AWOL on 28 May 1967. On 16 June 1967 the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of elimination and elected not to make a statement on his own behalf.
On 21 June 1967 the appropriate authority vacated the suspension and directed execution of a UD. Accordingly, on 29 June 1967 the applicant was discharged after completing 3 months and 10 days of active military service and accruing 173 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness. A UD was normally considered appropriate.
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 contentions of the applicant have been noted by the Board. However, they are not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record. The discharge process was in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the reason for and the character of the discharge are commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
2. The Board determined that the applicant was no less mature and that his aptitude area scores were not significantly lower that other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. Additionally, the Board found no evidence of record to support the applicants contention that his personal problems impaired his ability to serve sufficiently to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
3. 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.
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
DENY APPLICATION
Karl F. Schneider
Acting Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707414
His record contains documentation of only one award, the National Defense Service Medal. On 10 May 1967 the appropriate authority approved the elimination action; however, he suspended the elimination for six months and indicated that unless vacated sooner the action would be canceled at the end of the suspended period. On 12 June 1967 the applicant accepted an NJP for another violation of Article 86 (i.e., AWOL for the period 28 May through 6 June 1967).
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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 20060013114C071029
On about 16 November 1967, the applicant's commander recommended that he appear before a board of officers for the purpose of determining whether he should be discharged before the expiration of his term of service for unfitness. He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and waived a personal appearance before a board of officers. Evidence of this incident was not found in the applicant's record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9610577C070209
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. His punishment for this offense was 7 days of restriction and 14 days of extra duty. The record also has a DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) authenticated by the applicant which indicates the applicant received a UD, under the provisions of AR 635-212 for unfitness, after completing 2 years, 1 month, and 7 days of active...
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705473C070209
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) by reason of unfitness be changed to an honorable discharge for medical reasons. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069983C070402
The Board considered the following evidence: He believes that his PTSD symptoms are related to the rape incident in Vietnam. He had completed 11 months and 18 days of active military service.