| Mr. | Fred K. McCoy | Chairperson | |
| Ms. | Margaret K. Patterson | Member | |
| Mr. | George D. Paxson | 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 at the time of his discharge he was experiencing troubles at home; that his father was suffering from cancer; and that his wife was having difficulties with her pregnancy.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 21 December 1970 the applicant entered the Regular Army for 2 years at the age of 19. The applicant attended basic training at Fort Polk, Louisiana but never completed the training.
The applicant's record of service indicates the highest grade he held on active duty was private/E-1 and contains no documented evidence of acts of achievement, valor, or service meriting special recognition. However, there is an extensive record of AWOL related disciplinary infractions, which began in basic training, and includes a special court-martial conviction.
On 11 June 1971 the applicant was tried by special court-martial and found guilty of three specifications of violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ. The first specification was for being AWOL from 8 to 19 February 1971; the second specification was for being AWOL from 23 February to 14 April 1971; and the third specification was for being AWOL from 19 April to 21 May 1971. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 100 days which was suspended for
6 months.
On 22 June 1971, while still under a suspended confinement sentence, the applicant went AWOL and remained away until 24 June 1971; and he again went AWOL on 25 June 1971 and remained away until 1 August 1971.
On 11 August 1971 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.
On 19 August 1971 the applicant’s unit commander forwarded his recommendation to separate the applicant for unfitness, under the provisions of AR 635-212. The unit commander cited the applicant’s repeated AWOL infractions; his 150 days of time lost; and his conviction by special court-martial as his reasons for the action.
On 3 September 1971 the appropriate authority approved the discharge and directed the applicant receive a UD. Accordingly, on 9 September 1971 the applicant was discharged after completing 8 months and 19 days of active military service, and accruing 150 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.
On 11 March 1981 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 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. The Board noted the applicant’s contentions that his father’s illness and wife’s difficult pregnancy were the reasons for his AWOL. However, while the Board is empathetic, the applicant's personal problems are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
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 | 9710655
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 | 9710655C070209
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 | 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 | 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 | 9708814
MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: DOCKET NUMBER: AC97-08814 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. Mr.ChairpersonMr.MemberMr.Member Also present, without vote, were: Mr.Loren G. HarrellDirectorMr.Joseph A. AdrianceAnalyst The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. In...
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 | 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 | 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 | 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...