Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711669
Original file (9711669.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, he is a Vietnam veteran. After all his service from 1967 - 1970, how could he be unsuitable with only 6 months to go? He and the first sergeant just did not get along.

 EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant’s military records show he was born on 28 August 1949. He completed 10 years of formal education. On 3 November 1967, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63H (Engine Powertrain Repairman).

On 11 March 1968, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for disobeying a lawful order to get a haircut.

On 27 May 1968, the applicant was assigned to Vietnam.

On 19 September 1968, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of sleeping on his guard post. His approved sentence was confinement at hard labor for 4 months, suspended, and a forfeiture of 2/3 of his pay per month for 6 months, the excess of $73 pay per month for 3 months suspended.

On 26 May 1969, the applicant was reassigned out of Vietnam.

On 15 August 1969, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for disobeying a lawful order to turn in his unserviceable TA-50.

On 4 February 1970, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 20 November 1969 - 15 January 1970. He was sentenced to hard labor without confinement for 45 days, to be reduced to pay grade E-1 and to forfeit $109 pay for 1 month.

On 25 March 1970, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for being AWOL 25 - 27 March 1970.

On 15 May 1970, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.

On 3 June 1970, the commander notified the applicant that he was being considered for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability.

The applicant acknowledged the separation action. He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived personal appearance before such a board, and waived representation by counsel before such a board. He elected not to submit any statements in his own behalf.

On 4 June 1970, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and was found to be able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right and to be mentally capable of understanding and participating in board proceedings.

On 4 June 1970, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

On 4 June 1970, the applicant was discharged in the pay grade of E-2 under the provisions of AR 635-212 for unsuitability, with a general discharge. He had completed 2 years, 5 months, and 5 days of creditable active service and had 57 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 unsuitability.

 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.

2. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations.

3. Considering the applicant’s conviction by one special and one summary court-martial plus his three Article 15s, acts of indiscipline covering more than one assignment, the characterization of his discharge as general is generous.

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

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 | CY2011 | 20110001414

    Original file (20110001414.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 24 June 1970, his acting commander informed him of the initiation of proceedings to discharge him under the provisions Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities. On 6 July 1970, the applicant received a letter of reprimand from his company commander for being in a physical condition such that he could not perform his normal duties. On 14 July 1970, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge for...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000942

    Original file (20130000942.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was told he would be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability), with a general discharge. On 5 March 1971, he was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by a court-martial, with an under other than honorable characterization of service and issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Contrary to his contention that nobody told him...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004099901C070208

    Original file (2004099901C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests that his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge, and by awarding him several months of back pay in the grade of E- 3. On 2 December 1985, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010079

    Original file (20090010079.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its15-year statute of limitations. The applicant's record of service shows he was convicted by one summary court-martial and two special courts-martial for being AWOL on five separate occasions and he received NJP four times under Article 15, UCMJ. While the applicant's awards of the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device for service in the Republic of Vietnam are...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013266

    Original file (20100013266.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states his general discharge under honorable conditions should be upgraded to fully honorable based on a review of his records 3. c. The psychiatrist recommended the applicant be administratively separated from military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 [Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability]. The evidence of record shows he: * served just over six (6) months of a 12-month tour of duty in Vietnam * was not awarded any individual...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018398

    Original file (20090018398.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). d. On 7 October 1970, in Vietnam, for being AWOL on or about 7 October 1970. On 3 November 1970, 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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110015561

    Original file (20110015561.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. He recommended the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations-Discharge-Unfitness and Unsuitability) for unsuitability, character and behavioral disorder. When separation for unsuitability was warranted, an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021730

    Original file (20090021730.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The psychiatrist recommended the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability. Given the circumstances in this case, the applicant's discharge was inequitable for the following reasons: * he served 4 years, 1 month, and 4 days of creditable service * he served in Vietnam for 1 year, 8 months, and 27 days * he was twice wounded and twice cited for meritorious service * he was promoted to SSG/E-6 in three short years * from 30 November 1966 to 7 May...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072164C070403

    Original file (2002072164C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT STATES : That he was informed at his court-martial that his discharge would be upgraded after a certain number of years and it has not been done. On 21 August 1969, NJP was imposed against him for failure to obey a lawful order from the battalion commander and for failure to go to his place of duty. 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...