| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Beverly A. Young | Analyst |
| Ms. JoAnn Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be recharacterized to a general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That he requests that his discharge be reinstated to a general discharge because he was in the Army for two years mainly performing hard labor without pay. He believes that the Vietnam Conflict was wrong even though he did not fight in Vietnam and that he “gave up two years of his life for things the U.S. Government still believes to be wrong today.” He contends that he deserves justice.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant was inducted in the Army on 21 September 1967. He was assigned to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, for basic combat training, but he did not complete the training.
On 30 January 1968, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 3 October 1967 to 29 October 1967 and from 30 October 1967 to 8 January 1968. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for six months and forfeiture of $60.00 pay per month for six months. The portion of the sentence adjudging forfeiture was suspended for six months.
The applicant was also convicted by a special court-martial on 14 May 1968 of being AWOL from 12 February 1968 to 13 April 1968 and of making a false official statement. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for six months and forfeiture of $60.00 pay per month for six months.
On 6 May 1969, the applicant was notified of pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, paragraph 6(a), for unfitness based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.
On 15 May 1969, the applicant was convicted again by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 18 November 1968 to 27 April 1969. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for six months and forfeiture of $70.00 pay per month for six months.
The applicant underwent a psychiatric examination on 19 May 1969 and was diagnosed as having a passive aggressive personality. He was found to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings. The psychiatrist stated that the applicant received “1 Article 15”; however, this Article 15 is not found in the applicant’s personnel records.
On 20 May 1969, the applicant acknowledged notification of separation action for unfitness, consulted with legal counsel, waived his right to a hearing before an administrative separation board, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. He also acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if an undesirable discharge under conditions other than honorable were issued to him.
On 22 May 1969, the applicant underwent a separation physical examination and was found fit for separation with a physical profile of 111111.
On 25 June 1969, the separation authority approved the separation action and directed issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 8 July 1969 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, paragraph 6a, for unfitness based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. He had a total of 26 days of creditable service and 621 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
There is no indication in the applicant’s records that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.
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.
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 Board considered the applicant’s contentions that he was in the Army for two years mainly performing hard labor without pay and that he deserves “justice”. However, the Board noted that the hard labor was imposed as the result of conviction by court-martial.
2. The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and VA benefits. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.
3. 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.
4. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for his separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
5. 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.
6. 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
JL______ KAH____ MHM_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001058144 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010918 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19690708 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-212,paragraph 6a(1) |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Unfitness |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084101C070212
On 13 January 1968, the confinement at hard labor portion of the court-martial sentence was vacated and the applicant was confined in the Fort Jackson Post Stockade to serve out his sentence. On 18 March 1968, the unit commander recommended that the applicant be required to appear before a board of officers convened under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-212 for the purpose of determining whether he should be discharged prior to the expiration of his term of service. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080002223
On 28 May 1968, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant be furnished an undesirable discharge. There is no indication in the available records that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade within its 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075234C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 18 December 1974, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. On 18 December 1974, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110018459
The applicant requests, in effect: * his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable * he be paid 13 months of back pay and other entitlements 2. The applicant states he: * was told his undesirable discharge would be changed to an honorable discharge after 6 months * was told his pay vouchers were lost * is owed approximately 13 months of pay for service while in Leavenworth, KS and he is entitled to other military benefits * needs his records corrected so that he may be able to look...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067589C070402
On 14 April 1969, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant be furnished an undesirable discharge. There is no indication in the available records that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade within its 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016237
The applicant was discharged on 2 August 1968, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, with a character of service of under conditions other than honorable and he was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 22 March 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant has provided no evidence or argument to show his discharge should be upgraded and his military records contain no matter upon...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140009930
The separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), currently in effect, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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 | 20080019801
On 24 April 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an honorable discharge. An unrelated, earlier Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) considered the applicant's request for a medical discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008387
However, the board determined that the reason and authority for his discharge should be changed from Army Regulation 635-212 to Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-33b(2) misconduct, an established pattern for shirking. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. The records show the applicant was 21 years and 4 months of age at the time of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607615C070209
On 25 June 1969, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness. On 18 August 1969, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-212, for unfitness with a UD. Failure to file within 3 years may be excused by a correction board if it finds it would be in the interest of justice to do so.