| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Mark D. Manning | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lestor Echols | Member | |
| Ms. Gail J. Wire | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he believes he should have received an honorable discharge.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 2 May 1975, he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for 3 years. He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Polk, Louisiana and upon completion was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).
The applicant’s service record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition. However, it does contain a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on three separate occasions.
On 15 July 1975, the applicant accepted NJP for wrongfully possessing marijuana and his punishment for this offense was a forfeiture of $172.00 per month for 2 months and 30 days of restriction and extra duty.
On 7 May 1976, the applicant accepted NJP for incapacitating himself for the proper performance of his duty due to a previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor. His punishment was a forfeiture of $57.00 and 14 days of restriction and extra duty.
On 20 May 1976, the applicant accepted NJP for two specifications of disobeying the lawful orders of superior noncommissioned officers. His punishment for these offences included a forfeiture of $93.00 and 14 days of restriction and extra duty.
A complete separation packet containing all the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge processing is not on file in the record. However, there is a form letter on file that was prepared by the Chief, Civil Law Division, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, Headquarters, 21st Support Command, on 1 November 1976, which confirms the applicant’s separation packet was legally sufficient and that there was no legal objection to his discharge.
Also on file is the endorsement of the separation authority, dated 8 November 1976, which approved the applicant’s separation, under the provisions of paragraph 13-5a (1), Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of misconduct and directs that he receive an undesirable discharge.
A separation document (DD Form 214) on file, issued to and signed by the applicant on the date of his separation, confirms that he was undesirably discharged on 22 November 1976, after having completed a total of 1 year,
6 months, and 21 days of active military service.
There is no evidence of record to show the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade to his discharge within their 15 year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 established the policy and prescribed the procedure for separating members for misconduct. The issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate and at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an 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 notes the applicant’s contention that he believes he should have received an honorable discharge but finds no evidence to support this claim.
2. The record does not include a full separation packet containing all the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation processing. However, it does include properly constituted DD Form 214, authenticated by the applicant with his signature, which contains the authority, characterization, and reason for his discharge. Therefore, lacking any conflicting independent evidence, the Board presumes government regularity in the discharge process.
3. Lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met, the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process, and it concludes that the characterization of the applicant’s 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
__MDM__ __ LE __ __GJW__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001053696 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/07/19 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1976/11/22 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Misconduct |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003336
The applicant's military personnel records contain a DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) that shows he was discharged on 16 December 1976 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations Misconduct) for conviction by a civil court. There is no evidence in his military record and the applicant did not present any evidence that shows the discharge he received in 1976 was unjust or unfair. The evidence of record shows the applicant received NJP on three...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040007582C070208
He had completed 3 years, 8 months and 13 days of active military service and he had no recorded lost time. There is no evidence that the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. At the time of the applicant's separation, a UD was appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071640C070402
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. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. There is no indication 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 | CY2010 | 20100000584
On 16 November 1978, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his 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. His service was not consistent with Army standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063263C070421
The Board considered the following evidence: 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: The Board must conclude that the applicant's commander, using the information available to him at that time, properly considered and accepted the applicant's request for discharge.
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 | CY2007 | 20070007333C071029
The record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 that shows the applicant was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005352
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). It also shows that he was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial and that he received an undesirable discharge with service characterized as under conditions other than honorable. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086128C070212
He was separated with a UD. The available evidence does not show the applicant has ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2003086128SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20031104TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UD)DATE OF DISCHARGE19750826DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200, Chap 13DISCHARGE REASONA51.00BOARD DECISION(DENY)REVIEW AUTHORITYISSUES 1.144.50002.3.4.5.6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014231
At the time, an undesirable discharge was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged for misconduct; however, the separation authority could direct that a general discharge be issued if the individual had been awarded a personal decoration or if warranted by the particular circumstances in his or her case. The applicant failed to provide evidence which proves by a preponderance of the evidence that his discharge was rendered unjustly, in error, or that there were mitigating circumstances...