Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711160
Original file (9711160.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general under honorable conditions discharge.
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that his discharge was inequitable because his family situation was not taken into account by his superiors and no one told him he could apply for a hardship discharge. His health now is such that he needs care. Due to the type of discharge he received, he is unable to obtain care at any VA facility. He includes letters of support from his local sheriff’s office, the mayor’s office and a neighbor.

 EVIDENCE OF RECORD :

The applicant’s military records show that he was born on 30 March 1947. He completed 5 years of formal education. His Armed Forces Qualification Test score was 15. He was inducted into the Army on 13 November 1968 for 2 years. He did not complete basic combat training.

On 5 May 1969, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) for the period 21 January - 19 March 1969. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 4 months, suspended, and to forfeit $30 pay for 3 months.

On 11 September 1969, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL for the period 11 May - 26 August 1969. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 4 months.

On 24 September 1969, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation. He was diagnosed with an inadequate personality, chronic, severe. The evaluating physician recommended he be separated as unsuitable.

On 30 September 1969, the company commander initiated separation action under AR 635-212 for unfitness. The applicant had no previous record of any disciplinary action taken. The applicant was advised of his rights by counsel. He waived his right to consideration of his case by a board of officers; waived personal appearance before a board; elected not to make a statement on his behalf; and waived representation by counsel.

On 9 October 1969, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

On 15 October 1969, the applicant was discharged, under other than honorable conditions, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of AR 635-212, for misconduct. He had completed 2 months and 14 days of creditable active service and had 262 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness.

Unless the disease or injury is service-connected, the VA requires a veteran to have at least 180 days of active duty to be eligible for treatment in their facilities.

On 2 April 1975 and 17 April 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

 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. 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.

2. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf and elected not to do so. He was afforded the opportunity to have his case heard by a board of officers and waived that right. The type of discharge directed was appropriate considering the seriousness of the misconduct.

3. While the Board has taken cognizance of the applicant’s good post-service conduct, this factor does not warrant the relief requested.

4. In view of the foregoing, there appears to be 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
                                                      

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017268

    Original file (20120017268.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 5 March 1970, the applicant's immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability) by reason of unfitness. Consistent with the chain of command's recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unfitness and directed he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate and be reduced...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058144C070420

    Original file (2001058144C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. APPLICANT STATES : That he requests that his discharge be reinstated to a general discharge because he was in the Army for two years mainly performing hard labor without pay. On 20 May 1969, the applicant acknowledged notification of separation action for unfitness, consulted with legal counsel, waived his right to a hearing...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001717

    Original file (20120001717.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 17 November 1972, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. A UD was normally considered appropriate for individuals separated by reason of unfitness. He has provided no evidence or argument to show his UD should be upgraded to a general discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022432

    Original file (20120022432.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The examiner stated: a. However, at the time of the applicant's separation, the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, provided for a general discharge under honorable conditions for an individual whose military record was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070004066

    Original file (20070004066.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The evaluation shows that the applicant was referred for evaluation prior to elimination under Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations) for unsuitability. 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. _____Linda D. Simmons___ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20070004066 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED TYPE OF DISCHARGE DATE OF DISCHARGE DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR 635-212 DISCHARGE...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066705C070402

    Original file (2002066705C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 29 April 1970, the unit commander recommended discharge for unfitness with issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. On 15 June 1970, the separation authority approved the discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness and directed that the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002893

    Original file (20090002893.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He completed 1 year, 8 months, and 2 days of active military service. On 11 February 1975 and 19 October 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711465

    Original file (9711465.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    : The applicant’s military records show:He was born on 2 June 1949. On 10 July 1969, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 3 - 8 July 1969. On 28 July 1970, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge UOTHC , in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067589C070402

    Original file (2002067589C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 14 April 1969, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant be furnished an undesirable discharge. There is no indication in the available records that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade within its 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100459C070208

    Original file (2004100459C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 23 April 1969, the applicant's company commander initiated a request for discharge for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations). However, his records show that he was convicted three times by special courts-martial and received three Article 15's during his military service.