MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 30 September 1998
DOCKET NUMBER: AC97-07928
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 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 general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was told that if he kept his record clear his discharge would be automatically upgraded after 3 years.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 22 May 1962 the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years while assigned in Augsburg, Germany. At the time of his reenlistment the applicant had completed 1 year, 1 month, and 2 days of honorable service, attained the rank of private first class/E-3, and held military occupational specialty 630.00 (Auto Maintenance Helper).
The applicants record documents no individual acts of valor, achievement or service warranting special recognition. However, the record does contain a record of disciplinary infractions including a trial by special court-martial, and the applicants acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ.
On 12 February 1963 the applicant accepted an NJP for not complying with an order from his first sergeant. His punishment for this offense was a reduction in rank to private/E-2.
On 6 April 1963 the applicant was tried by special court-martial for two specifications of violation of Article 91; the first specification was for being disrespectful in language to a superior noncommissioned officer; and the second specification was for willfully disobeying a lawful order. He was found guilty and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months; forfeiture of $55.00 per month for 6 months; and reduction to the rank of private/E-1.
On 15 August 1963 the applicants unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate elimination action, under the provisions of AR 635-208 for unfitness. The commander cited the reasons for the action as the applicants being a constant disciplinary problem to his superiors and that he was not only no longer of value to the Army, but was in fact a burden to it.
The applicant, after being advised of his rights and the basis for the contemplated elimination action; elected to waive his right to have his case heard by a board of officers; to waive his right to counsel; and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
In an undated 2nd endorsement the appropriate authority approved the applicants separation and directed he be issued a GD. The applicants record does not contain a DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge). However, the service record indicates the applicant was discharged with a GD from Fort Hamilton, New York on or about 31 October 1963.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
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. The Board noted the applicants contention that he was told if he kept his record clear his discharge would be automatically upgraded after 3 years. However, the US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits and changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable. The Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically state that no factors should be established that require automatic change or denial of a change in discharge.
2. Although the applicants record does not contain a DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), it does record the facts and circumstances concerning events that led to the applicants discharge from the Army. The Board presumed government regularity in the discharge process and found the reason for and the character of the discharge are commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
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
Loren G. Harrell
Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707928
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. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709619C070209
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 | CY2007 | 20070017087C080407
The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on 17 June 1965 shows he completed a total of 1 year, 9 months and 24 days of creditable active military service and that he accrued 160 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement. 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. While the separation authority could grant a general, under honorable conditions...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709619
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. Accordingly, on 21 August...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711482
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 | CY2007 | 20070004693
The Board recommended that the applicant be discharged with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged with a general discharge, under honorable conditions, on 27 April 1964, in accordance with the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, Separation Program Number (SPN) 28B. The evidence of record shows the applicant completed 1 year, 10 months, and 12 days of his 3-year enlistment and that he had 17 days of time...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006942
On 21 February 1963, the applicants company commander recommended the applicants separation from that military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208. On 18 April 1963, the lieutenant colonel serving as Commander, 38th Transportation Battalion (Germany), recommended approval of the applicants discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 and that the applicant be given an undesirable discharge. The applicants DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | AR20080006942
On 21 February 1963, the applicants company commander recommended the applicants separation from that military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208. On 18 April 1963, the lieutenant colonel serving as Commander, 38th Transportation Battalion (Germany), recommended approval of the applicants discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 and that the applicant be given an undesirable discharge. The applicants DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001752
On 16 April 1964, the applicants immediate commander recommended that the applicant be discharged from military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 (Personnel Separations), for unfitness, citing his prior misconduct to include his courts-martial convictions and his AWOL offenses. On 13 May 1964, the applicant was accordingly discharged. There is no indication that the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075923C070403
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that about 1 year after he enlisted in the Army, he started receiving letters and phone calls from his brothers, his sisters and from the family minister regarding his father and mother’s conditions at home. After being AWOL for about 4 months, he realized that things were getting better and decided to turn himself in. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.