| 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 to a general/under honorable conditions discharge (GD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the nature of the separation was too harsh for the offense.
COUNSEL CONTENDS: The counsel has submitted no additional factors for consideration at this time.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 6 January 1954 the applicant entered the Regular Army for 3 years at the age of 19. The applicant completed basic training and advanced individual training (AIT) at Camp Chaffee, Arkansas. Upon completion of AIT the applicant
was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 1844 (Cannoneer) and assigned to an Artillery Battery in Chicago, Illinois for his first permanent duty station.
The applicant’s record indicates the highest grade he held on active duty was private/E-2 and is void of any acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition. However, there is an extensive history of disciplinary infractions in the form of repeated incidents of AWOL which resulted in three trials by special court-martial.
On 6 July 1954 the applicant went AWOL from his unit and remained away until apprehended and returned to military control at Camp Chaffee, Arkansas on
18 August 1954, at which time he was confined pending court-martial until
2 September 1954. On 1 September 1954 he was tried by special court-martial, found guilty, and sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 3 months and to forfeit $50.00 per month for 3 months (the sentence was suspended for
6 months).
On 7 September 1954 the applicant again went AWOL and remained away
until 8 November 1954. For this offense he was tried by special court-martial, on 16 November 1954, found guilty, and sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 6 months and to forfeit $25.00 per month for 6 months. The applicant was confined at Fort Chaffee from 9 November 1954 through 10 February 1955 at which time he was reassigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma.
On 19 February 1955 the applicant went AWOL from Fort Sill, Oklahoma and remained away until apprehended and returned to military control on
22 February 1955. He again departed AWOL on 26 February 1955 and remained in that status until 11 March 1955.
For these two AWOL periods the applicant was again tried by special court-martial on 29 March 1955, found guilty, and sentenced to 6 months confinement at hard labor and forfeiture of $55.00 per month for 6 months.
On 14 April 1955 the applicant’s unit commander requested the applicant’s case be reviewed for possible elimination by a board of officers, under the provisions of AR 615-368. The commander cited as his reason for the request the applicant’s repeated incidents of AWOL; complete lack of responsibility toward the unit or military service; and behavior which showed that he was not reliable or trustworthy. The applicant was notified of the requirement for him to appear before a board of officer’s who would determine if he would be released from military service prior to his expiration of term of service, and his right to have counsel present to represent him.
On 15 June 1955 the administrative separation board convened, with the applicant in attendance, and found, after careful consideration of the evidence, that the applicant had traits of character which rendered retention in the service undesirable. The board recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service based on unfitness and that he receive a UD.
On 27 June 1955 the appropriate authority approved the findings of the board and directed the applicant be discharged with a UD. Accordingly, on 9 July 1955 the applicant was discharged after completing 6 months and 15 days of active military service and accruing 354 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.
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 615-358, 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, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:
1. The evidence of record does not support his contention that his discharge was too harsh for the offenses committed and the applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.
2. The Board determined the applicant's discharge was appropriate because his quality of service at the time of discharge was inconsistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. The Board noted that the applicant’s case was heard by a board of officers (Administrative Separation Board), at which he appeared, that recommended he be discharged from the service with a UD and the appropriate authority approved the findings of the board of officers and directed discharge.
3. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation applicable at the time. The reason for and the character of the discharge are commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
4. 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.
5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
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 | 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 | 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 | 9711388
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 | 9711058
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. On 4 June 1973 the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711158
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. On 9 May 1973 a board of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199710502
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 | 9708848
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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. PURPOSE : To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to...
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 | CY2009 | 20090001542
Should the command deem his performance to be useless to the service the applicant was to be separated from the military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Personnel - Discharge - Unfitness), by reason of unfitness. The applicant was credited with 1 year, 7 months, and 10 days of active military service. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711222
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...