| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member | |
| Mr. Harry B. Oberg | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was not on post when he got into trouble. He did not know he was an alcoholic until he joined the Army and started drinking regularly. He did not understand the papers the Army sent him to sign, only that the detainer they had on him would be dropped so he signed. He sincerely regrets his past. He has lung cancer and would like to erase that past while he can. He provides his pathology report and a character witness statement as supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
After having had prior service in the Army National Guard, he enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 January 1969. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 62K (Grader Operator).
The applicant first departed absent without leave (AWOL) on 14 June 1969.
On 15 December 1969, the applicant was convicted in civil court of being drunk, resisting arrest, and assault and battery. He was returned to military control on 11 February 1970.
On 9 March 1970, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with being AWOL for the periods 14 June to or about 11 October 1969, 15 to on or about 19 November 1969, and 30 November 1969 to on or about 11 February 1970. Apparently, he departed AWOL again (on 11 April 1970) before he could be court-martialed.
On 6 May 1970, the applicant was arrested by civil authorities and charged with armed robbery. On 5 June 1970, he was convicted in civil court of larceny of a person and was sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary for three years.
The applicant informed the Army that he was in civil confinement for robbery and stated “…I would appreciate it if you would arrange for me to get a discharge from the Army.” By letter dated 29 October 1970, he provided additional information to the Army and stated “…I hope this information helps you in completing my discharge.”
On 24 March 1971, the applicant was informed by letter that action had been initiated to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206. He was informed that an undesirable discharge could be issued. He was informed the action was suspended for 30 days during which period he had the right to request a hearing before a board of officers, to be represented by military counsel, and to submit statements in his behalf. On this date he informed his command that his time limit to appeal expired. By letter dated 25 March 1971 he responded “Enclosed are the papers I received to fill out.” If he filled out the statement of options, it is not available. He questioned receiving an undesirable discharge and stated it was his hope to receive a general discharge. He added that he would accept whatever discharge was decided upon.
On 8 June 1971, the appropriate authority approved the discharge recommendation and directed the applicant receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
On 14 June 1971, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1. The service copy of his Report of Transfer or Discharge, DD Form 214, with the authority for separation is not available. His DD Form 214 shows he had completed 1 year, 6 months, and 25 days of creditable active service and had 307 days of lost time.
Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for misconduct (fraudulent entry, conviction by civil court, and absence without leave or desertion). That regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the elimination of enlisted personnel for misconduct when they were initially convicted by civil authorities, or action taken against them which is tantamount to a finding of guilty, of an offense for which the maximum penalty under the Uniform Code of Military Justice is death or confinement in excess of 1 year.
Army Regulation 635-200 is the regulation currently in effect which governs the separation of enlisted personnel. It states that the quality of service of a soldier is affected adversely by conduct that is of a nature to bring discredit on the Army or is prejudicial to good order and discipline, regardless of whether the conduct is subject to Uniform Code of Military Justice jurisdiction. Characterization may be based on the conduct in the civilian community; the burden is on the soldier to demonstrate that such conduct did not adversely affect his or her service.
On 6 June 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge and denied his request.
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. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
2. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. The evidence of record shows that the applicant knew what he was signing and in fact he initiated the request for discharge at the time he informed the Army he was in civil confinement.
3. Considering the applicant’s record of AWOL and his conduct in the civilian community (twice convicted by civil authorities), the type of discharge given was and still is appropriate. The Board is cognizant of his previous drinking problem and his current diagnosis of lung cancer; however, those factors do not warrant the relief requested.
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
__cla___ __aao___ __hbo___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001057679 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011030 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19710614 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-206 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A61.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071351C070402
The applicant was 18 years old at the time he entered active duty and had 12 years of formal education. In March 1974 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013383
On 16 March 1971, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, paragraph 33, with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. On 27 December 1985, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his characterization of service and determined he had been properly and equitably discharged. He received NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, a conviction by court-martial, he had an extensive record of lost time...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014075
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 April 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130014075 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. In September 1975, he was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Misconduct) due to conviction by a civil court. b. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066923C070402
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. After review by a board of officers at Fort Knox, Kentucky, with representation by counsel on 25 August 1971, the discharge authority directed that the applicant be discharged with an undesirable discharge,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024917
On 1 July 1975, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation that the applicant be discharged from the service because of conviction by a civil court under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 and directed that the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Based on the foregoing, there is an insufficient basis to upgrade the applicant's discharge to an honorable discharge or to a general discharge under honorable conditions. _______ _ _x______...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016423
BOARD DATE: 13 March 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110016423 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 2 July 1973, his immediate commander submitted a request for authority to discharge the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 based on his conviction by civil authorities of armed robbery, sentence to 12 years of incarceration, and confinement in a state correctional facility. The evidence of record shows the applicant was convicted by a civil court for armed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009011
The applicant states he completed basic combat and advanced individual training as well as 12 months of service in Vietnam despite his lost time. His DD Form 214 confirms he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 by reason of misconduct - conviction by civil court with an under other than honorable conditions character of service and issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The evidence of record shows he was convicted by a civil court for armed robbery, an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010028
While AWOL from Fort Ord, he was arrested and then convicted of robbery (2nd Class Felony) and sentenced to 5 years confinement. On 4 January 1978, the Army Discharge Review Board, under the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP), denied the applicant's petition for an upgrade of his discharge. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016618
On 12 March 1975, the applicant was notified that action was being taken to discharge him from the Army for misconduct conviction by civil authorities under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations Discharge Misconduct). The complete facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's administrative discharge are not present in the available records; however, his records show the appropriate authority (a major general) approved the recommendation for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069732C070402
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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. On 7 January 1971, the applicant again left his unit in an AWOL status until 11 April 1971. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain...