| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Rosa M. Chandler | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Mr. John P. Infante | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the UD that he received was too harsh.
COUNSEL CONTENDS: In effect, that the Board's attention is invited to those injustices raised by the applicant in his petition to the Board.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 28 July 1970, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of
3 years. On 10 August 1970, he was assigned to basic training at Fort Dix, New Jersey. He completed basic combat training. However, he never enrolled in advanced individual training.
The available records show that the applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) from 4 October-11 November 1970. He was apprehended by military police in Washington, DC on 12 November 1970 and he was returned to military authorities at Fort Meade, Maryland. He left Fort Meade AWOL from
18 November-7 December 1970. He was in confinement at Fort Meade from
7 December 1970-13 January 1971.
An Army Discharge Review Board Report and Directive, dated 27 December 1977, shows that on 13 January 1971, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 4 October-12 November and from
18 November-7 December 1970. However, his sentence is unknown, the charge sheet for this offense is not contained in the available record.
A DD Form 1569 (Incident/Complaint Report), dated 5 March 1971, shows that he was issued Special Orders #19 by, Headquarters, Special Processing Branch, Fort Meade, directing him to report to Fort Jackson, South Carolina not later than 2400 hours on 29 January 1971. Apparently, he did not report as instructed. He went into an AWOL status from 29 January-4 March 1971. The orders are not contained in the available record.
On 5 March 1971, civilian police in Washington, DC pursued him after he was observed running with a long handled object sticking from the waist of his trousers. He was apprehended and charged with carrying a deadly weapon (a 12" carving knife). He was also charged with assault with a deadly weapon.
On an unknown date, the applicant appeared before the United States Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Criminal Division. He was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and for carrying a deadly weapon. He was sentenced to confinement in the District of Columbia jail in Washington, DC for a period of
4 years.
On 20 January 1972, the applicant’s commander notified him of his intent to recommend separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to civil conviction.
On 23 March 1972, the applicant authenticated a document with his own signature in which he acknowledged that he had been advised of the basis for the contemplated action and its effects, and the rights available to him. He stated that he understood the consequences of receiving a UD. He waived further representation by legal counsel and a personal appearance before a board of officers. He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf. He also stated in writing that he did not intend to appeal his civil conviction.
On 12 April 1972, the applicant’s commander recommended approval with a UD.
On 1 May 1972, competent authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a UD under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 due to conviction by a civil court while on active duty.
On 1 May 1972, the applicant was separated with a UD. He had completed
2 months and 24 days of active military service. He had 557 days lost time due to being in AWOL and in confinement. He was separated with the rank of private, pay grade E-1.
On 27 December 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
Army Regulation 635-206, then in effect, stated, in pertinent part, that an individual will be considered for discharge when initially convicted by civil authorities of an offense which involves moral turpitude, regardless of the sentence received or maximum punishment permissible under any code. At the time a UD was considered appropriate.
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 this requirement.
2. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, then in effect, with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.
3. Conviction by civil authorities obligated military authorities to consider the
applicant for discharge. Retention is normally only considered in exceptionally meritorious cases when clearly in the best interests of the Army.
4. The board considered the quality of the applicant's active duty service and determined that this service was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an upgrade of the UD that he received.
5. 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
__RJW __ __BJE__ ___JPI___ DENY APPLICATION
INDEX
| CASE ID | AR2001051350 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010802 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-206 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A61.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.6100 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016423
BOARD DATE: 13 March 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110016423 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 2 July 1973, his immediate commander submitted a request for authority to discharge the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 based on his conviction by civil authorities of armed robbery, sentence to 12 years of incarceration, and confinement in a state correctional facility. The evidence of record shows the applicant was convicted by a civil court for armed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078900C070215
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 26 February 1970, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The separation document (DD Form 214) that was issued to the applicant on the date of his discharge, 26 February 1970, shows that he received an UD under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for unfitness, by reason of civil conviction.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100029872
The applicant requests a change in his undesirable discharge (UD) to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) or medical discharge. The separation authority approved the recommendation to discharge the applicant and directed issuance of a DD Form 258A (Undesirable Discharge Certificate) on 21 February 1974. Section III of that regulation prescribed the standards and procedures for processing cases of individuals who, during their current term of active military service, had...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040008684C070208
He had completed 1 year, 8 months and 10 days of active military service. At the time, a UD was considered appropriate. The applicant was convicted of possession of a narcotic drug and sentenced to serve an indeterminate term not to exceed 5 years in civil confinement.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709653C070209
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: On 14 June 1967 the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years at the age of 17. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010142
A board of officers convened on 6 March 1970 and found that the applicant was undesirable for further retention in the military service because of his conviction by a civil court and recommended that he be discharged from the service for misconduct (conviction by civil court) with the issuance of an undesirable discharge. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008486
The applicant's military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 November 1967. In a letter, dated 24 April 1975, the applicant's commanding officer advised him that he intended to recommend him for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 by reason of conviction and sentence by a civil court, and that he may receive an undesirable discharge as a result of this action. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007075
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to general discharge. On 22 November 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. _______ _ X _______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063812C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709653
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.The Board considered the following evidence: On 18 March 1980 the Army Discharge Review Board 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: