| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Mark D. Manning | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Ms. Gail J. Wire | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was very immature. If he had the chance to do it over, he would do it right. He provides his Report of Transfer or Discharge, DD Form 214, as supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was born on 28 April 1951. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 August 1969. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 64A (Light Truck Driver).
On 7 February 1970, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 31 January – 1 February 1970.
On 3 March 1970, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of four specifications of absenting himself from his place of duty. He was sentenced to forfeit $50 pay and to be restricted for 30 days.
The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record, DA Form 20, shows that he was AWOL from 24 October – 17 November 1970.
On 19 November 1970, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation. The examining psychiatrist noted that the applicant had received a rehabilitative transfer within the company and had been counseled numerous times but that the applicant related he did not care what happened and he just wanted to be free. He was diagnosed as an immature personality, passive-aggressive type, manifested by a negative attitude towards authority figures, impaired stress tolerance, lack of insight, impaired judgment, and impaired impulse control. He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command.
On 23 November 1970, the company commander initiated separation action under Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability because of character and behavior disorders as manifested by his disrespect of authority and need for constant disciplinary action.
On 2 December 1970, the applicant completed a separation physical. He was found qualified for separation.
On 4 December 1970, the applicant was advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated action. He waived his right to consideration of his case by a board of officers; waived personal appearance before a board; and waived representation by counsel. He elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.
On 9 December 1990, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.
On 30 December 1970, the applicant was discharged with a general under honorable conditions discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability. He had completed 1 year, 3 months, and 15 days of creditable active service and had 27 days of lost time.
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members were subject to separation for unsuitability for inaptitude, character and behavior disorders, apathy (lack of appropriate interest), defective attitudes,
and inability to expend effort constructively, alcoholism, and enuresis. A general under honorable conditions characterization of service was normally 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. 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 Board is cognizant of the applicant’s young age at the time of his enlistment. However, the Board also recognizes that thousands of soldiers who enter the Army at 18 years of age go on to successfully complete their enlistments. Considering the applicant’s record of service, it would not be equitable to upgrade his discharge to fully honorable.
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
__mdm___ __le____ __gjw___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001058536 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010719 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19701230 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-212 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A40.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130005665
On 20 May 1970, the applicant's immediate commander recommended the applicant's separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unsuitability. The applicant was accordingly discharged on 25 May 1970. The evidence of record shows the applicant's quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000768
On 11 September 1970, the applicant's unit commander recommended him for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unfitness. On 26 October 1970, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability and directed the applicant receive a GD. When separation for unsuitability was warranted, an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060017412
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 June 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060017412 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. When separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record. As a result, the Board recommends that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001084
Although all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's discharge, i.e., his complete separation packet, are not in his military records, the applicant was advised by his commanding officer on 11 November 1970 that proceedings to discharge him from the military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Discharge for Unsuitability) had been initiated. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, further provides, in pertinent part, that a general discharge is a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051849C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The Board concluded that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020397
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 29 May 1971. The evidence of record shows the applicant displayed a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by his multiple instances of NJP and bar to reenlistment for various infractions throughout his military service. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and the character of service is commensurate with his overall record of military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110015561
The applicant requests upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. He recommended the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations-Discharge-Unfitness and Unsuitability) for unsuitability, character and behavioral disorder. When separation for unsuitability was warranted, an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060907C070421
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. On 2 October 1970, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was separated from the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056900C070420
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. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: At that time, he was found to be medically qualified for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022705
The applicant states, in effect, he was discharged for unsuitability by reason of a character and behavior disorder and he would like his discharge reviewed and upgraded. However, it now appears his overall service record and his diagnosed personality disorder warrant upgrading of his discharge to fully honorable as directed by the above-referenced Army memoranda. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a....