| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deyon D. Battle | Analyst |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Allen L. Raub | Member | |
| Ms. Gail J. Wire | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable or a general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That he could not perform his duties properly because he broke his tail bone while he was in the Army and lost all of his self-respect.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 1 August 1972, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1. He successfully completed his training as a mechanical maintenance helper. He was promoted to the pay grade of E-2 on 1 December 1972 and E-3 on 1 June 1973.
Nonjudicial Punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 19 March 1974, for being absent from his unit from 4 March until 13 March 1974. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.
He had NJP imposed against him on 28 May 1974, for failure to obey a lawful order. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.
On 1 August 1974, NJP was imposed against the applicant for three incidents of failure to go to his appointed place of duty; three incidents of being absent from his unit; two incidents of failure to obey a lawful order; two incidents of breaking restriction; and one incident of being absent from his place of duty. His punishment consisted of a reduction from the pay grade of E-3 to pay grade E-1.
The applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) on 30 August 1974 and he remained AWOL until he surrendered to civil authorities and was returned to his unit on 19 September 1974.
He underwent a physical and mental evaluation on 20 September 1974. On the Report of Medical History the applicant indicated that he had been treated for a broken tailbone in November 1973, while he was in the Army. The attending physician diagnosed him as being fit for duty without profile, responsible for his acts and qualified for separation.
On the same day, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for elimination from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 13 for unfitness. He acknowledged receipt of the notification and, after consulting with counsel, he waived his rights and he opted not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 3 October 1974, he was arrested and confined by civil authorities on a robbery warrant. He returned to his unit on 21 November 1974, still pending trial by civil authorities.
The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 5 December 1974. Accordingly, on 13 December 1974, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unfitness based on frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities. He had completed 2 years, 1 month and 14 days of total active service and he had approximately 90 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement. He was furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unfitness. Specific categories included minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities, and commission of a serious offense. An undesirable discharge was normally 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. 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.
2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
3. The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board. However, there is no evidence of records that supports his contention that he was unable to perform his duties. The evidence of record clearly shows that he had NJP imposed against him on three separation occasions. He was also arrested and confined by civil authorities on a robbery warrant. The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record of service.
4. 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.
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
___alr___ ___gw___ ___ra____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001051945 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/03/27 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1974/12/13 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | 583 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 592 | 144.5100.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080332C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 26 January 1976, the applicant's commander advised the applicant of his rights and preferred charges against him for the AWOL offense. There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069648C070402
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: EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075118C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 2 November 1972, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty. He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 6 June 1977, for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072065C070403
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 24 January 1974, the commander submitted the recommendation for discharge and indicated that the applicant had been a total failure as a soldier.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091812C070212
However, there is no evidence of record that shows the punishment imposed. A review of the available records fails to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | AR20070009079C071029
Edward E. Montgomery | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable or a general discharge. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial; that he had NJP imposed against him twice; and that he was counseled on approximately 18 separate occasions while he was in the Army.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000487
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The applicant's record of service included numerous adverse counseling statements, a bar to reenlistment, four nonjudicial punishments, and 3 days of lost time. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge or a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110015736
On 8 June 1974, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant elected to have his case considered by a board of officers, to be granted a personal appearance before the board, and to be represented by counsel. Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 27 September 1974 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to conviction by civil authorities. After considering all of the available evidence, the ADRB determined that under the circumstances...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014296
The applicant states that his discharge was too harsh for the misconduct for which he was discharged. 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 boards 15-year statute of limitations. The applicant's contentions have been noted by the Board; however, they are not supported by either the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050008804C070206
On 30 November 1972, while serving in the pay grade of E-4, he reenlisted for a period of 3 years and assignment to Fort Meade, Maryland. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of...