| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. P. A. Castle | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Mr. John E. Denning | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: The applicant states that his discharge should be upgraded because at the time of his discharge he was suffering from mental depression. He goes on to state that he has been receiving treatment for his problems at the Veterans Administration (VA) and has improved and cleaned up his act.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant’s military records show that he volunteered for induction in Seattle, Washington, on 17 December 1964. He successfully completed his training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and was transferred to Hawaii on 3 June 1965, for duty as a supply clerk.
He was convicted by a summary court-martial on 10 March 1966, of failure to go to his place of duty. His sentence consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2.
On 9 July 1965, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for reporting to guard duty in a dirty uniform, with a dirty weapon and in need of a shave. His punishment consisted of restriction for 14 days.
On 17 March 1966, he was transferred with his unit to Vietnam. He remained in Vietnam until he was returned to Oakland Army Base, California, for separation. He was honorably released from active duty in the pay grade of E-4 on 3 December 1966, as an overseas returnee. He had served 1 year, 11 months and 17 days of total active service.
On 15 December 1966, he enlisted for a period of 3 years and was transferred to Fort Eustis, Virginia.
On 19 May 1967, NJP was imposed against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 18 May to 19 May 1967. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3, a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.
On 19 July 1967, he was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 1 June to 30 June 1967 and two specifications of failure to go to his place of duty. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 4 months, a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and a forfeiture of pay.
On 1 December 1967, the applicant underwent a psychiatric examination. The examining psychiatrist indicated that the applicant was originally referred to him by the chaplain in connection with a question of depression and that he was undergoing the current examination for administrative board proceedings. He also indicated that the applicant came from an unfortunate background, that he seemed bewildered, confused and depressed. He diagnosed the applicant as having a Mixed Character Disorder (Inadequate and Passive-Aggressive Personality Features). He recommended that the applicant be separated immediately for unsuitability rather than unfitness.
On 28 December 1967, the applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability. He cited as the basis for his recommendation, the applicant’s habits and traits of character manifested by repeated commission of petty offenses.
On 12 February 1968, charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 8 December to 11 December 1967 and 15 December 1967 to 28 January 1968, when he was apprehended and was returned to military control. The record is silent as to any punishment imposed for those AWOL offenses.
On 28 February 1968 he was admitted to the Army hospital at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, for drug ingestion (beer and 24 Valium tablets). He was discharged from the hospital the following day.
The facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not present in the available records. However, his records contain a duly constituted report of separation (DD Form 214) which shows that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 8 April 1968, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness, based on his involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities. He had served 9 months and 28 days of active service during his current enlistment and had 176 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
There is no indication 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 limitations.
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, 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. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative discharge was accomplished in conformance with applicable regulation with no violations of any of his rights.
2. Accordingly, it appears that the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances. There is no evidence that his depression caused his bad conduct. He could tell right from wrong and adhere to the right as evidenced by his completion of training.
3. 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.
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
___be ___ ___js ___ ___jed __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001060046 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/02/14 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1968/04/08 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-212 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Unfitness |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018490
BOARD DATE: 19 August 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130018490 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. He also provides a letter, dated 20 April 2010, from his psychiatrist who states: * the applicant is under his care in the PTSD clinic * he has been treating the applicant since August 2009 * the applicant has PTSD, major depressive disorder, and a history of cocaine, marijuana, and alcohol dependence * it is his opinion the applicant's PTSD and depression are related to his traumatic...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006090
The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 23 July 1981 and requested a personal appearance before that board. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064974C070421
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 to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000246
On 7 February 1967, the convening authority approved only so much of the sentence as provided for hard labor without confinement for 2 months and forfeiture of $40.00 per month for 4 months. On 2 October 1973, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for a general discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070475C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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. There is no evidence of record nor has the applicant submitted any evidence that shows that the action taken by the Army in this case was incorrect and in view of his numerous acts...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000874
There is no evidence in the available records to show he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations. Thereafter, the type of discharge and the character of service were to be determined solely by the individual's military record during the current enlistment. A second memorandum, dated 8 February 1978, better known as the "Nelson Memorandum," expanded the review policy and specified that the presence of a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078245C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. On 29 September 1968, the applicant's counsel submitted a statement in which he indicated that he had counseled the applicant of the basis for his contemplated separation and its effect as well as his rights.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001067045C070421
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 26 January 1968, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness and directed that the applicant be furnished an undesirable discharge. The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included two nonjudicial punishments, two summary...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606645C070209
The psychiatrist recommended that the applicant be discharged from service for unfitness. On 10 September 1968, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unfitness with a discharge UOTHC. On 18 September 1968, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-212, for unfitness with a discharge UOTHC.
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: