| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. P. A. Castle | Analyst |
| Mr. John H. Kern | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member | |
| Ms. Paula Mokulis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was young and made an error in accepting the discharge. He states that when his mother died he was needed at home to help his grandmother raise his teenage brother and sister. He states three things caused him to start acting irrationally; his immaturity at the time, the pressure of receiving numerous messages from the Red Cross about the family problems and acts of vindictiveness done to him by a soldier who did not like him.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted on 3 November 1976 at age 18. He successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training at Fort Gordon, GA and in April 1977 he received orders transferring him to Panama.
On 3 April 1978, approximately one year after he arrived in Panama, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial and found guilty of three specifications of being disrespectful in language to a non-commissioned officer (NCO) and one specification of willfully disobeying a lawful order. He was sentenced to a forfeiture of $200.00 for one month, to be reduced to the grade of Private E-1, and confinement at hard labor for 30 days at the Retraining Brigade in Fort Riley, KS.
On 12 May 1978, while at Ft Riley, KS, the applicant accepted field grade nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for two specifications of being disrespectful in language toward an NCO. His punishment included forfeiture of $92.00 for one month, 14 days of extra duty, and 14 days of restriction to the unit area.
On or about 15 May 1978, the applicant’s commander recommended he be discharged for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14. Upon notification of his commander’s recommendation for discharge, based on an established pattern of shirking (over 23 incidents), he waived his right to a board of officers, his right to representation by counsel, his right to a medical examination and elected not to present matters in his own behalf.
On 17 May 1978 he was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army regulation 635-200, chapter 14. He completed 1 year, 5 months, and 7 days creditable service.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.
To support his arguments the applicant submits a letter from the American Red Cross dated 23 October 1984 signed by the executive director. The letter describes the events and trouble the grandmother had raising two teenagers and the fact that numerous messages were sent to the applicant’s unit. In a personal statement he tells of his immaturity at the time, about a fight he had with a soldier who continued to provoke him, the hardships of serving overseas and his regrets of his misconduct.
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 contentions that he was young and immature are without evidence or merit in light of the fact that he demonstrated the capacity to complete basic and advanced training, and served approximately one year without an offense.
2. Trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses charged. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted.
3. The applicant waived the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf. It is improbable that he would have done so if he felt there were errors that caused an unjust discharge.
4. There is no corroboration in available records nor did the applicant submit evidence to support his contentions of continual harassment by another soldier.
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
___pm___ __jhk ___ ____tl___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001056086 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/08/23 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1978/05/17 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130010087
On 4 October 1978, before a summary court-martial at Fort Campbell, KY, he was convicted of a single specification of the Charge of disrespecting a superior NCO and a single specification of the Charge of assaulting a fellow Soldier, each act occurring on or about 15 August 1978. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, by reason of misconduct desertion. The applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002575
On 29 October 1980, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his recommendation to initiate discharge action against him for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-33b. Based on his record of indiscipline, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. In view of the foregoing evidence, there is no basis for upgrading his discharge to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014299
This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. He further contends that he should be issued a DD Form 215 which shows that he served in the Persian Gulf War. There is no evidence in his military records, and the applicant provided no evidence which shows he qualified for any campaign...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711421
On 27 October 1978, the applicant was discharged in pay grade of E-1 under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14. 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 has submitted no additional evidence to show why his discharge should be further upgraded to fully honorable.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130004153
On 21 June 1979, the applicant's unit commander initiated action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-33, for misconduct due to frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. On 28 June 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14 for misconduct, with an Under Other Than...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130006441
The applicant states he had over 30 months of good time when he was discharged. He should not have taken the discharge as he had only 4 months left for his discharge to be honorable. The available evidence does not show and the applicant has not provided any evidence that shows he had over 30 months of good service or that he had the option to wait 4 more months and he would receive an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007017
BOARD DATE: 18 October 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120007017 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 9 December 1980, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts, approved his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, and directed the issuance of an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. His repeated misconduct and failure to respond to counseling by members of his chain of command diminished the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120013667
On 13 May 1980, his immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, for misconduct - frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33b, by reason of misconduct - frequent involvement in incidents...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009381
On 14 December 1977, the applicant was notified by his unit commander that separation action was being initiated against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), for misconduct with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was discharged with an under other than honorable conditions discharge for a pattern of misconduct - frequent incidents of discreditable nature with civil...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110008297
The applicant's records do not contain a separation packet; however, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged UOTHC on 29 December 1978 under the provisions of paragraph 14-33b(1), Army Regulation 635-200. There is no record the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board seeking a discharge upgrade during that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.