PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE:
DOCKET NUMBER: AC97-07523
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 and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.
The Board considered the following evidence:
Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
advisory opinion, if any)
FINDINGS:
1. The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.
2. The applicant requests in effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
3. The applicant states in effect, that the characterization of service was too harsh based on his overall service to his country.
4. The applicants counsel, a military claims consultant with the Veterans of Foreign Wars, requests the applicants discharge be upgraded to an HD and cites the applicants record of over 6 years of good service as the basis for taking such an action.
5. The applicants military records shows that he initially was inducted into the Army of the United States on 10 May 1962 at the age of 18. Over the course of his career the applicant completed an overseas tour of duty in France and one in Germany, and had attained the rank of specialist/E-5. His awards and decorations include: the Good Conduct Medal; the National Defense Service Medal; the Vietnam Service Medal; and the Vietnam Campaign Medal.
6. The applicants record is free of any record of disciplinary problems prior to beginning his last period of service on 17 September 1968 at which time he had completed 6 years, 4 months, and 7 days of honorable service. On 11 February 1970 the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation which found he suffered from no psychiatric illness and cleared him for separation; however, they did offer the recommendation that the applicant be afforded the opportunity for a rehabilitative transfer which they believed could help the applicant.
7. On 12 April 1970 the applicants unit commander decided against a rehabilitative reassignment, initiated separation action, under the provisions of AR 635-212 for unfitness, and recommended that the applicant receive an undesirable discharge (UD). The unit commander cited the applicants acceptance of nonjudicail punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, on three separate occasions, for minor disciplinary infractions; and his conviction by special court-martial for misappropriating an M-16 rifle as the basis for taking separation action. All the cited infractions took place in a three month period between late December 1969 and early April of 1970.
8. The applicant waived his right to have his case heard by an administrative separation board and on 7 May 1970 the appropriate authority approved the separation action and directed the applicant be discharged with a GD. Accordingly, on 12 May 1970 the applicant was discharged after completing
1 year, 7 months, 26 days of his current enlistment and a total of 8 years and 3 days of active military service.
9. On 3 December 1980 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed the applicant's records and denied an upgrade of his discharge.
10. 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.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The Board concurs with the findings and conclusions of the ADRB and presumes that the applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations. There is no indication of procedural errors by the ADRB which would tend to have substantially jeopardized the applicant's rights.
2. While the applicants disciplinary infractions for the short period of time just prior to his separation are not condoned by the Board, consideration should be given to the fact that that they were strictly military in nature and not otherwise serious offenses against society; in addition, by all indications they were aberrations from the applicants normal good conduct. The overall quality of the applicants last period of service does not warrant recharacterization of his discharge. However, in view of the honorable nature of the preponderance of his total service, the applicants honorable discharge of 16 September 1968 should be considered a complete and unconditional separation. To do otherwise would work an injustice upon him and his heirs by permanently attaching a stigma to his total military service, and possibly denying them the right to certain VA benefits when the overwhelming majority of his service was honorable.
3. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and in recognition of his previous years of good service, it would be appropriate and proper to consider his honorable discharge of 16 September 1968 as a complete and unconditional separation from military service. The applicants records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was eligible for a complete and unconditional separation from the military service at the time of his honorable discharge on 16 September 1968.
2. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
______________________
CHAIRPERSON
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707523
The applicant’s record is free of any record of disciplinary problems prior to beginning his last period of service on 17 September 1968 at which time he had completed 6 years, 4 months, and 7 days of honorable service. On 3 December 1980 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed the applicant's records and denied an upgrade of his discharge. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and in recognition of his previous years of good service, it would be appropriate and proper...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091818C070212
This provision of law allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of justice to do so. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it would not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021730
The psychiatrist recommended the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability. Given the circumstances in this case, the applicant's discharge was inequitable for the following reasons: * he served 4 years, 1 month, and 4 days of creditable service * he served in Vietnam for 1 year, 8 months, and 27 days * he was twice wounded and twice cited for meritorious service * he was promoted to SSG/E-6 in three short years * from 30 November 1966 to 7 May...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004592
On 7 October 1970, the applicant's unit commander recommended that he be required to appear before a board of officers to consider his separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. There were no medical records available to the Board and the applicant provided no medical records. Additionally, as stated in Army Regulation 635-212, when separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017102
The applicant requests the following: * an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge * award of the Army Good Conduct Medal * correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show all awards he is entitled to for his overseas service 2. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Award) states: a. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to: * upgrading his general discharge to an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004437C070205
Thomas Ray | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 28 February 1984 requesting that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606170C070209
On 9 April 1968, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness with a discharge UOTHC. On 26 March 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicants request for an upgrade of his discharge. In consideration of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and in recognition of his more than 2 years, of good service, it would be unjust to consider his honorable discharge of 8 May 1963, as other than a complete and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9708814C070209
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 discharge be upgraded based on his Vietnam service. On 21 August 1969 the applicant accepted his second NJP for failing to go to his prescribed place of duty, day guard duty. On 6 July 1971 the applicants unit commander advised the applicant of his intent to initiate...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016763
The applicant requests: * Upgrade of his general discharge to a fully honorable discharge * Award of the Air Assault Badge 2. There is no evidence of record and he did not provide any evidence that shows he completed an air assault training course while assigned or attached to the 101st Airborne Division. This regulation also prescribed that an undesirable discharge was normally issued unless the particular circumstances warranted a general or an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017533
On 6 May 1982, after carefully reviewing the applicant's entire record of military service and the issues and evidence he presented in his application, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined the applicant's discharge was proper and equitable, and it voted to deny his request for an upgrade of his discharge. 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...