| Mr. | Samuel A. Crumpler | Chairperson | |
| Mr. | Karen J. Newsome | Member | |
| Mr. | Raymond V. O’Connor JR. | 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 the reason for his discharge was unjust.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 21 March 1968 the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States for a period of 2 years at age 19.
The applicant's record of service indicates the highest grade he held on active duty was private/E-2 and contains no documented evidence of 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; repeated incidents of AWOL; and military confinement.
On 5 May 1968, while still in basic combat training, the applicant went AWOL and remained absent for 24 days until 28 May 1968. He again went AWOL on 29 June 1968, from the special processing detachment at Fort Riley, Kansas, and remained absent 49 days until 18 August 1968. The applicant began another period of AWOL, by absenting himself from the special processing detachment at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, on 20 August 1968 and remained away
142 days until 11 January 1969. The applicant was in military confinement for
70 days from 12 January to 21 March 1969 pending trial by court-martial.
On 28 March 1969 the applicant was tried by special court-martial for the
29 June to 18 August 1968, and the 20 August 1968 to 12 January 1969, AWOL periods discussed in the proceeding paragraph. His sentence was confinement at hard labor for 6 months (suspended) and forfeiture of $68.00 per month for
6 months.
On 22 March 1969 the applicant again went AWOL for 33 days until 24 April 1969. On 12 May 1969 the unexecuted portion of the confinement at hard labor punishment contained in the special court-martial sentence, adjudged on
28 March 1969, was vacated and the applicant was placed in confinement at the post stockade at Fort Riley, Kansas.
On 29 May 1969 the applicant was again tried by special court-martial for the last AWOL period contained in the proceeding paragraph. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and to forfeit $68.00 per month for
6 months.
On 28 July 1969 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 military authorities. The commander cited as his reasons for the recommendation the applicant’s repeated AWOL infractions; record of court-martial convictions; and the applicant’s failure to respond to rehabilitative efforts of the correctional training unit at Fort Riley, Kansas.
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. The unit commander forwarded his recommendation to separate the applicant for unfitness, and in a 1st endorsement the first intermediate level commander recommended approval of the separation action and recommended he receive a UD.
On 1 August 1969 the appropriate authority approved the discharge and directed the applicant receive a UD. Accordingly, on 11 August 1969 the applicant was discharged after completing 2 months and 17 days of active military service, and accruing 424 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.
On 31 October 1974 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge and found that the discharge process was proper in all respects.
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 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 | 9710742
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 27 November 1968 he was convicted by a special court-martial at Fort Dix of being AWOL from 5 June to 30 October 1968. However, the evidence submitted with his application and the evidence of record fail to support his contentions.
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 | 199705807
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He states that he received awards and decoration, served successfully in combat, and was too close to completing his tour in the Army to receive a bad discharge. The applicant submitted a request for an upgrade of his discharge to the Army Discharge Review Board on 17 September 1974, 10 June 1978, and 15 November 1979, and all were denied.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707261
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 commander cited as his...
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 | 1997002268
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. A board of officers convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service because of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003250C070206
Edward E. Montgomery | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 5 November 1969; therefore, the time for the applicant...
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 | 9706825
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...