| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Paul A. Petty | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Gail J. Wire | Member | |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: He believes his undesirable discharge to be in error and unjust for reasons brought to his attention that he did not realize before, when he was younger and afraid to do anything about it. He enlisted in the Army with an agreement that he would go into the motor pool but it did not happen. When he arrived at the induction center in Fort Jackson, South Carolina, he was told that they would put him where they wanted him because he belonged to Uncle Sam. He was sent to the United States Army Southeast Signal School (USASESS), Fort Gordon. This is why he did not want to stay in the Army and he felt that the Army broke its enlistment contract with him.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 April 1968 at 22 years of age for a 2-year term of service. His enlistment contract shows no enlistment options or contract for training in any specific Military Occupational Specialty (MOS). The applicant signed in his own handwriting the 1AA Form 63 (Statement of Enlistment), statement of understanding, “That I have not been guaranteed technical school training, …I agree to accept any assignment in accordance with the needs of the Army and will complete the period for which I enlisted.” He also wrote in his own hand writing, “No other promises have been made.”
He was Absent without Leave (AWOL) from Fort Gordon from 7-15 July 1968
for which he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), by forfeiture of $10 and 14 days restriction and extra duty.
On 5 August 1968, he was assigned to the Student Brigade, USASESS, for training in MOS 31M, Radio Relay and Carrier Attendant. On 4 September 1968, the applicant went AWOL and remained so for 28 days, until 2 October 1968, when he was placed in confinement at Quonset Point, Rhode Island, by the Navy Shore Patrol. He was confined for 4 days. He was returned to Fort Gordon where he as convicted for the AWOL by a special court-martial on 16 October 1968. He was sentenced to reduction to pay grade E-1, to perform hard labor without confinement for three months, and forfeiture of $46 per month for three months.
On 12 November 1968, the applicant’s commander recommended him for an undesirable discharge for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Discharge for Unfitness and Unsuitability) because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities. The applicant was counseled and advised of his rights on 13 November 1968 by a Judge Advocate General Corps officer. The applicant waived consideration by a board of officers, personal appearance before such a board, representation by counsel, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.
Further counseling and rehabilitation were waived as having no further affect. After careful consideration, the commanding general approved the undesirable discharge for unfitness on 13 December 1968. The applicant was so discharged on 17 December 1968 with 6 months and 19 days service and 42 days lost.
Army Regulation 635-212 (Discharge for Unfitness and Unsuitability), in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 6 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that an individual was subject to separation for unfitness because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. When separation for unfitness was warranted 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 was properly and justly discharged under the circumstances. There is no evidence of a breach of the enlistment contract.
2. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record.
3. 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
__iw___ ___gw____ ___fe_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001056159 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010809 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19681213 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-212 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144 – Administrative Discharge |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130006332
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 November 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130006332 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006090
The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 23 July 1981 and requested a personal appearance before that board. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016752
He also states he did not receive his final pay at the time of his discharge and he was told his discharge would be upgraded in 6 months. At the time of his discharge he acknowledged with his signature that he had been informed of the procedures for applying to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. There is no evidence in the available records regarding his pay from 15 March 1969 to 20 June 1969 when he was discharged.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005219
The applicant requests reconsideration of his request to have his undesirable discharge upgraded to an honorable discharge and he requests that the narrative reason be changed to reflect that he was discharged due to hardship. There is no available evidence to show he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. The applicant's administrative discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140004409
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 November 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140004409 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 21 November 1968, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation that the applicant be discharged from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 and directed the applicant be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 3-7b, states a general discharge is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080019280
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). He goes on to state that he felt like he was in prison and he rebelled. There is no evidence in the available records to show 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 | 20100012576
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge, that his date of birth (DOB) be corrected to show he was born in the month of June, and that the fifth digit of his Social Security Number (SSN) be changed to a 6. 2. His DD Form 214 issued at the time of his discharge reflects that the fifth digit of his SSN is a 0 and that his DOB is 29 January 1947. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019027
On 4 December 1967, his commander informed him he was recommending him for discharge for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability) by reason of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities. 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 sets forth the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110008461
On 3 April 1971, the applicant's unit commander notified him that action was being initiated to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080015825
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded, that all lost time due to being absent without leave (AWOL) be removed from his records and that he be present during the Board's hearing of his case. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)) provides Department of the Army policy criteria and administrative instructions regarding an applicant's request for the correction of a military record. Army Regulation 635-212, in...