| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Joyce A. Hall | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his reason for being absent without leave (AWOL) were because his father died after he entered the service. His mother and his younger siblings needed him at home. His commander told him that he could get a hardship discharge in three weeks. He could not wait three weeks because his family had no income. His commander also told him that he could get an under other than honorable conditions discharge and that would change to a general discharge under honorable conditions within three months. This never materialized. He was proud to have been chosen for aviation training. He was proud to be in the Army and he did his best. His family needed him more than the Army. He is requesting a general discharge under honorable conditions as he was promised when he was discharged.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 7 January 1966, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 67A10 (Aircraft Maintenance Crewman). The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-2.
On 13 April 1966, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for AWOL from 11 to 13 April 1966. His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $20.00 pay, 7 days restriction and extra duty.
On 1 September 1966, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of being AWOL from 18 July to 16 August 1966. He was sentenced to
6 months confinement at hard labor (CHL) (suspended for 6 months).
The applicant’s official military records show that he was AWOL from
26 September to 6 December 1966. However, the circumstances surrounding the AWOL is missing from his record.
On 12 December 1966, the unexecuted portion of the 6 months CHL was remitted and duly executed. The applicant was confined to the Post Stockade, Fort Benning, GA.
On 29 March 1967, the 6 months CHL was suspended for 2 months.
On 1 August 1967, the applicant was convicted by an SPCM of being AWOL from 23 April to 11 July 1967. He was sentenced to CHL for 6 months.
The applicant was confined to the Post Stockade, Fort Benning, GA.
On 25 August 1967, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness. The commander cited the applicant’s frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities. The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him. He waived consideration, personal appearance, and representation before a board of officers. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf but declined to do so.
On 25 August 1967, the applicant was found mentally and physically fit for retention. He had no disqualifying mental or physical defects sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels. He was considered mentally competent to participate in board proceedings.
On 28 August 1967, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
On 29 August 1967, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness with a discharge UOTHC.
He completed 8 months and 17 days of creditable service and had 345 days of lost time including confinement.
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 6a(1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.
The U. S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharges or both were improper or inequitable. The Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically stated that no factors should be established which would require automatic change or denial of a change in 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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service. Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
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
__cla___ __clg___ __dph___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001057684 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010911 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19670829 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-212 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A51.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.5000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076276C070215
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. He stated that had he known what a discharge under other than honorable conditions would mean to his future, then he would never have accepted the discharge and would have served his sentence in confinement instead. On 12 June 1969, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-212,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608775C070209
He was in confinement from 7 August 1968 until 2 January 1969. On 16 September 1969 the applicants commanding officer recommended that the applicant be discharged for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the undesirable discharge that he might receive.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605914C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to show that his discharge was under honorable conditions. On 15 November 1967, he was convicted by SPCM for AWOL for the period 4 May-27 October 1967. On 6 December 1967, the appropriate separation authority directed his discharge because of unfitness and that he be furnished a Undesirable Discharge (UD) Certificate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083902C070212
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. On 3 November 1967, the applicant's unit commander notified the applicant that he was recommending that he [the applicant] be discharged from the Army for unfitness under the provisions of AR 635-212, Paragraphs 6a(1). Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, defines a general discharge as a separation from the Army under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005311
On 6 December 1967, consistent with the chain of command's recommendations, the separation authority approved his discharge for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 and directed that he be issued 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. The evidence shows the applicant was 17 years of age at the time of his enlistment and 18 years of age at...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069983C070402
The Board considered the following evidence: He believes that his PTSD symptoms are related to the rape incident in Vietnam. He had completed 11 months and 18 days of active military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070004066
The evaluation shows that the applicant was referred for evaluation prior to elimination under Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations) for unsuitability. 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. _____Linda D. Simmons___ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20070004066 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED TYPE OF DISCHARGE DATE OF DISCHARGE DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR 635-212 DISCHARGE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027886
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his record to show he received a general discharge (GD) in lieu of the undesirable discharge he was issued. The evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for correction of his record to show he received a GD. _______ _ _X______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000236C070208
The commander stated that the applicant was totally unfit for further military service and strongly recommended that the applicant be separated from the military under provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Unfitness). The applicant provided a statement in response to the separation action in which he stated that he wished for elimination from the service because he did not believe in what the Army was doing to people in Vietnam and elsewhere. When separation for unfitness was warranted an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077239C070215
The Board considered the following evidence: On 6 March 1968, the applicant, still undergoing AIT, accepted NJP for being AWOL from 4-5 March 1968. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002077239SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20030313TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UD)DATE OF DISCHARGE19690415DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-212DISCHARGE REASONA51.00BOARD DECISION(DENY)REVIEW AUTHORITYISSUES 1.144.50002.3.4.5.6.