| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Rosa M. Chandler | Analyst |
| Mr. James E. Vick | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Mr. William D. Barr | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he believes that Item 13a (Character of Service) on his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) should be changed to show that he was honorably discharged since Item 25 (Education and Training Completed) includes the phrase "BENEFITS OF HONORABLE DISCHARGE."
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for a period of 2 years on 29 July 1970. After completing advanced individual training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 94B (Cook).
On an unknown date, the applicant departed Fort Jackson enroute to Fort Carson, Colorado. On 5 January 1971, he went into an absent without leave (AWOL) status. On 25 March 1971, he returned to military control at Fort Carson.
On 30 March 1971, nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, was imposed against him for the above period of AWOL. His punishment included forfeiture of $49.00 pay per month for 2 months and 30 days of restriction.
Evidence of record also show that the applicant was AWOL from 3 July through 29 September 1971. There is no evidence that he was ever punished for this AWOL offense.
On 15 October 1971, the applicant was determined to be physically qualified for separation.
On 18 October 1971, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation by a professionally trained psychiatrist. He was diagnosed as having an immature personality, but no significant mental illness. He was determined to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and to possess the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings. Success through further rehabilitative efforts was determined to be poor.
On 11 November 1971, NJP was imposed against the applicant after he was apprehended by military police and charged with operating a vehicle in a reckless manner by traveling 43.3 miles per hour in a zone posted for 30 miles per hour. His punishment included forfeiture of $71.00 pay per month for 2 months.
On 17 December 1971, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was being recommended for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-212, for unsuitability.
On 4 January 1972, the applicant's commander prepared a certificate that stated the applicant had been reassigned to various duty positions within the unit due to poor duty performance, that he had not been present for duty at least six times, and that he had been intoxicated to the point of unconsciousness between twelve and fifteen times between July 1971 and January 1972. The applicant admitted that he had been very intoxicated each time that he went AWOL.
On 31 January 1972, the applicant consulted with legal counsel. He acknowledged that he had been advised of the basis for the contemplated action and its effects, and the rights available to him. He also stated that he understood the consequences of receiving a discharge that was other than fully honorable. He waived further representation by legal counsel and a personal appearance before a board of officers. He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 7 February 1972, competent authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a GD, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unsuitability.
On 14 February 1972, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unsuitability with a GD. He had completed 1 year, 1 month and 17 days of active military service. He also had 168 days of lost time due to being AWOL.
Item 25 of the applicant's DD Form 214 show that he completed the following training: "Benefits of Honorable Discharge; UCMJ; ATP 21-114; CODE OF CONDUCT; GENEVA CONVENTION and CBR TRAINING."
The available evidence does not show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.
Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability. It provided, in pertinent part, for discharge due to unsuitability because of apathy of those individuals who displayed a lack of appropriate interest and/or an inability to expend effort constructively. 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.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and 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. All new soldiers receive a class on the benefits of an honorable discharge. Item 25 of the applicant's DD Form 214 shows the training that he completed, to include training about the benefits of an honorable discharge; it has nothing to do with the type of discharge that he received.
3. The applicant has established no basis for an upgrade of his discharge. The type of discharge directed and the reason for the discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.
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
_JEV____ _BJE___ __WDB__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001054434 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010821 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (GD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19720214 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-212 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A40.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.4000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040007861C070208
He demonstrated no significant mental illness. On 1 February 1972, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was being recommended for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unsuitability. On 24 February 1972, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unsuitability with a GD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022636
On 2 June 1972, the applicant's commander notified the applicant that he was being processed for elimination under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations Discharge Unfitness and Unsuitability). The U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency, under the operational control of the Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), is responsible for administering the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) and executes Secretary of the Army decision-making...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069400C070402
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. The evidence of record shows that the applicant mentioned in late 1971 that he was depressed but a psychiatric evaluation at that time determined he was not psychotic and he had a grasp of reality.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003493
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 30 August 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110003493 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007708
On 14 March 1972, the applicant was discharged with a general discharge under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unsuitability. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080007708 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080007708 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100029916
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 June 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100029916 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011485
The applicant requests upgrade of his general discharge (GD) issued on 4 August 1972 to an honorable discharge (HD). There is no indication that the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. It states, in pertinent part, that if during the review of a discharge, it is determined there is substantial doubt that the applicant would have received the same discharge if relevant current...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017780
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) which was upgraded to a general discharge (GD), under the Department of Defense (DOD) Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP), be upgraded to honorable. A memorandum, dated 21 October 1971, Subject: Elimination Proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, shows that a board of officers was directed to investigate his case to determine if he should be discharged from the service. He applied to the Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011457
Records show that nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant on 25 January 1972 for being AWOL. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 24 February 1972 with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability (character and behavior disorders). Since the applicants record of service included three nonjudicial punishments and 58 days of lost time, his record of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110014017
The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions to a general discharge (GD). On 6 December 1972, his commander advised him he was being considered for elimination from the service for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations Discharge Unfitness and Unsuitability), paragraph 6a(1), for frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities. The available records contain no evidence showing...