| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Kathleen A. Newman | Member | |
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a more favorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: The applicant offers no argument or evidence to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was inducted in Memphis, Tennessee on 11 December 1967 and was granted a waiver for a civil conviction of larceny and receiving stolen property. He was transferred to Fort Campbell, Kentucky to undergo basic training. While in basic training nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for sleeping on guard duty. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction. He completed his basic training and was transferred to Fort Ord, California to undergo his advanced individual training as an infantryman.
On 2 April 1968, NJP was imposed against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 30 March to 31 March 1968. His punishment consisted of restriction and extra duty.
On 8 April 1968, NJP was imposed against him for disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.
He completed his AIT and was transferred to Korea on 12 May 1968. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 10 July 1968.
He was convicted by a special court-martial on 21 December 1968 of assaulting a noncommissioned officer (NCO) with an M-14 rifle. He was sentenced to a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and a forfeiture of pay.
On 20 January 1969, NJP was imposed against him for being out of uniform and wrongfully possessing Korean liquor. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.
He was convicted by a special court-martial on 29 March 1969 of the wrongful possession of 11.25 grams of marijuana. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and a forfeiture of pay.
The court-martial convening authority suspended the unexecuted portion of the sentence pertaining to confinement on 9 July 1969, unless sooner vacated. However, on 11 August 1969, the sentence was vacated.
On 1 October 1969, the commander of the correctional facility submitted a recommendation to discharge the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness, based on his frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities.
The applicant acknowledged his rights and after consulting with counsel, waived his rights to appear before a board of officers and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
The applicant underwent a neuropsychiatric examination and was deemed mentally responsible to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right. He was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command.
The appropriate authority (a brigadier general) approved the recommendation on 11 October 1969 and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
On 1 October 1969, the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 were incorporated into chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200.
Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 17 October 1969, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, for unfitness due to frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. He had served 1 year, 10 months and 6 days of total active service and had 146 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
On 28 June 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed the applicant’s discharge under the Special Discharge Review program and found that he was properly discharged and that there was no basis to upgrade his discharge.
On 18 April 1979, while incarcerated in a Tennessee Correctional Facility, the applicant applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge and a personal appearance was granted before the ADRB traveling panel on 13 June 1979. He appeared before that board represented by counsel and contended that his problems began when he arrived in Korea, got mixed up with the wrong crowd and began using drugs and alcohol. The ADRB determined that he had been properly discharged and voted to deny his application for an upgrade of his discharge.
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time and which was incorporated into Army Regulation 635-200, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. It provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and/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 applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. Accordingly, the type of discharge and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering the facts of the case.
3. The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.
4. The applicant’s indisciplines began immediately upon entry into the service and continued throughout his entire period of service. Accordingly, his record of undistinguished service and disciplinary record does not warrant further relief.
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
___kan __ __reb ___ ____rjw _ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001060022 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/10/25 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1969/10/17 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/ch13 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Unfit |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 583 | 144.5000/a51.00/unfit |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059963C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: 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 | CY2005 | 20050000744C070206
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 Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should commence on the date of final action by the ADRB. The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085489C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 25 October 1967, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for being AWOL from 3 August to 18 August 1967. The ADRB determined that he had been properly discharged and denied his application on 8 August 1973.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088170C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 13 July 1967, he enlisted in the Army in Memphis, Tennessee, for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1. There is no evidence of record that shows that 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 | CY2006 | 20060004437C070205
Thomas Ray | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 28 February 1984 requesting that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general 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 Regulation 15-185,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014288
On 16 June 1970, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for violating a lawful general regulation and being drunk on duty. On 29 October 1970, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant be furnished an undesirable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072164C070403
APPLICANT STATES : That he was informed at his court-martial that his discharge would be upgraded after a certain number of years and it has not been done. On 21 August 1969, NJP was imposed against him for failure to obey a lawful order from the battalion commander and for failure to go to his place of duty. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of...
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 | CY1997 | 199709470C070209
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 3 February 1972 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied his request to upgrade his discharge. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING __jev____ _mkp ___ __jhk ___ DENY APPLICATION Loren G. Harrell Director INDEX CASE ID AC97-09470/AR1998011427 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 1999/01/27 TYPE OF DISCHARGE UOTHC DATE OF...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199709470
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 3 February 1972 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied his request to upgrade his discharge. This law, enacted on 8 October 1977, provided generally, that no VA benefits could be granted based on any discharge upgraded under the Ford memorandum of 19 January 1977, or the DOD Special Discharge Review Program.