| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. P. A. Castle | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Mr. Terry L. Placek | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he had an alcohol and substance abuse problem. He further states he had just completed the mandatory training for assignment to Vietnam and that the recommendation for his discharge by the commander came as a complete surprise to him.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted and entered on active duty on 13 March 1967. He completed basic and advanced individual training and was then awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) of 70A10 “clerk”.
The applicant was then assigned to Fort Jackson, South Carolina (SC) to complete the mandatory training for a subsequent assignment to Vietnam. He received nonjudicial punishment on 31 October 1967, for failure to report to his appointed place of duty. The forfeiture of $23.00 for one month was the punishment imposed by the commander.
On 1 November 1967, unit orders number 77 announced his promotion to private first class (E-3).
On 3 November 1967, the applicant again received nonjudicial punishment for showing disrespect towards his superior officer, by contemptuously laughing at him. He received an imposed punishment of reduction to grade E-1, forfeiture of $21.00 for one month, and restriction to the company area for 14 days with extra duty.
On 11 November 1967, he received a Summary Court Martial for breaking restriction. His imposed punishment was confinement at hard labor for 30 days and forfeiture of $50.00.
On 2 January 1968, he was recommended for administrative separation due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature involving military and civilian authorities under the provisions of AR 635-212.
The commander referred him to the local mental health service for examination on 9 January 1968. The applicant was found to be mentally responsible. The diagnosis of passive-aggressive personality, chronic, severe, manifested by inability to tolerate moderate social pressures and feelings of inadequacy were recorded. The applicant was mentally responsible and he was able to distinguish right from wrong, to adhere to the right and was psychiatrically cleared for administrative action deemed appropriate.
The records are absent of the discharge documents and are assumed by the Board to have been administratively correct in accordance with proper regulatory guidance. On 29 February 1968, the applicant was discharged with 10 months, and 22 days active duty service.
There is no evidence available and the applicant did not provide information to determine whether he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for 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. 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 applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
2. The contention that he does not know why he was discharged is unsupported by the evidence of record.
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
____tlp__ ___ra ___ ___ls____ DENY APPLICATION
Carl W. S. Chun
Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records
INDEX
| CASE ID | AR2001060051 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/01/08 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1968/02/29 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-212 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | 2001058144C070420
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. 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. On 20 May 1969, the applicant acknowledged notification of separation action for unfitness, consulted with legal counsel, waived his right to a hearing...
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 | CY2001 | 2001064561C070421
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. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001064561SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20010221TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UD)DATE OF DISCHARGE19680131DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-212DISCHARGE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070208C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On an unknown date, the applicant voluntarily requested an assignment in Vietnam. On 5 February 1970, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
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 | 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 | CY2001 | 2001060022C070421
He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and a forfeiture of pay. 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 has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002023C070205
Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 26 March 1968, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness due to his frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities. On 25 January 1976, he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his 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...
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...