| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Carolyn G. Wade | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Charles Gainor | Member | |
| Mr. Joe R. Schroeder | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was young and had a drinking problem that the Army failed to address.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was inducted into the Army of the United States on 4 August 1966 for a period of 2 years. On 11 August 1966, he was assigned to Fort Benning, Georgia for basic combat training. On 23 August 1966, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being absent without proper authority from his unit from 2200 hours on 21 August 1966 to 1800 hours on 22 August 1966. His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $20.00 pay and 14 days of restriction and extra duty. On 31 October 1966, he was assigned to Fort Gordon, Georgia for military police advanced individual training (AIT). On 5 November 1966, the applicant was reassigned to another unit at Fort Gordon for AIT in infantry. On 5 November 1966, the applicant departed this unit in an absent without leave status (AWOL) and remained absent until 14 November 1966.
On 30 November 1966, the applicant again departed his unit in an AWOL status and remained absent until 11 December 1966. On 11 December 1966, the applicant was placed in pretrial confinement. On 20 January 1967, the applicant was convicted by a special court martial of two specifications of AWOL. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 5 months and forfeiture of $64.00 pay per month for 5 months.
On 3 March 1967, the unexecuted portion of the applicant’s approved sentence to confinement at hard labor for 5 months was suspended for 4 months unless the suspension was sooner vacated. On 5 March 1967, he was released from confinement. On 11 March 1967, the applicant departed his unit in an AWOL status and remained AWOL until 23 March 1967. On 24 March 1967, the prior suspension was vacated and the applicant was again confined. On 21 April 1967, the sentence to confinement at hard labor was suspended for 2 months unless the suspension was sooner vacated.
On 10 May 1967, the applicant was arrested in Richland County, Columbia, South Carolina for using a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent and placed in the county jail. He was confined until he was released on 22 June 1967.
On 22 June 1967, the State of South Carolina, County of Richland, Court of General Sessions tried and convicted the applicant of using a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent. He was sentenced to 1 year’s confinement at hard
labor at the Public Works of Richland County. His sentence was suspended and he was granted probation for a period of 1 year and was not required to make reports to the Probation, Parole, and Pardon Office.
On 5 July 1967, the applicant’s chain of command was requested to provide comments and recommendations as to whether to retain the applicant in the military or to discharge him under the provisions of paragraph 33, Army Regulation 635-206, for a civil court conviction.
On 11 July 1967, the applicant signed a statement indicating he was aware of his right to appeal his civil conviction, but that he did not intend to do so.
On 12 July 1967, having been advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him under the provisions of paragraph 33, AR 635-206, the applicant waived his rights to a board of officers, personal appearance before a board of officers, representation by appointed counsel, and to submit statements in his own behalf.
The applicant’s entire chain of command recommended that the applicant be discharged from the Army with a UD. The appropriate authority approved the applicant’s discharge with a UD. Accordingly, on 14 August 1967, the applicant was discharged after completing 5 months and 23 days of creditable military service and accruing 189 days of lost time.
Army Regulation 635-206, then in effect, provided in pertinent part for the administrative separation or retention of enlisted personnel who had committed an act or acts of misconduct by reason of fraudulent entry in the service, conviction by civil court, and absence without leave or desertion. Paragraph 33 of that regulation prescribed the standards and procedures for processing cases of individuals who, during their current term of active military service, had been convicted by a civil court.
There is no evidence of record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) 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:
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 evidence of record does not support the applicant’s contention that he had a drinking problem and the Army did not address it, and the applicant has provided no evidence to support his contention. The Board notes that if the applicant did have a drinking problem, he could have brought it to the attention of his command and sought help through his chain of command and available on-post resources.
3. The Board carefully reviewed the applicant’s record of service and concluded that his discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. Additionally, the applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated his misconduct or poor duty performance. The applicant’s misconduct, to include a civil conviction and confinement, diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable or general discharge.
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
___LLS__ __CG___ ___JRS _ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001054676 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010910 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19670824 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-206, paragraph 33 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Civil Conviction |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | Director |
| ISSUES 1. | 144. 9227 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080044C070215
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070019041
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The applicant's records show that he received five Article 15s, he was convicted by two special courts-martial, he was AWOL on three occasions, and had two instances of military confinement and one civil confinement during his enlistment.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001681
On 14 May 1971, the applicant's intermediate commander recommended approval of the applicant's discharge, with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, and remarked that the applicant's sentence to confinement for not less than 25 years warranted his discharge from the Army. Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for misconduct. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019762
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 February 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100019762 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On an unknown date, the applicant's chain of command recommended the applicant be discharged by reason of unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability), then in effect. On 10 March 1976, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087436C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. There is no evidence of record that shows 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. He was discharged as a result of his conviction by civil authorities for committing the act of forgery on three separate occasions and considering his numerous acts of misconduct,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010122
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 10 August 1966, at the request of Mrs. Johnson, The Adjutant General responded to the applicant, informing him of the procedures for applying for a hardship discharge. On 7 December 1967, The Adjutant General informed the applicant that the Army Discharge Review Board had determined that he had been properly discharged and denied his request for a change in the type and nature of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087849C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 28 April 1960, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of the above period of AWOL. The Board carefully reviewed the applicant’s record of service and concluded that his discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010040C070205
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 31 October 1966 with an undesirable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for conviction by civil court. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001303
On 1 June 1967, the separation authority approved the recommendation to discharge the applicant from the Army under the provisions of section VI of Army Regulation 635-206 and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 5 June 1967, the applicant was accordingly discharged. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of section VI of Army Regulation 635-206, due to conviction by a civil court and he was issued an Undesirable Discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000667C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. 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 Military Records (ABCMR) should commence on the date of final action by the ADRB. As a...