| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member | |
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he did not do anything to deserve the discharge he received.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was inducted in Newark, New Jersey on 8 September 1967 at the age of 23. At the time of his induction he indicated that his mother resided in Newark and his father resided in Detroit, Michigan at an unknown address.
He was transferred to Fort Dix, New Jersey to undergo his basic training and on 8 October 1967, he went absent without leave (AWOL) and remained absent until he was returned to military control on 30 November 1967 and charges were preferred against him.
He was convicted by a special court-martial on 14 December 1967 of the AWOL offense and was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 3 months and a forfeiture of pay.
He again went AWOL on 16 January 1968 and remained absent until he was apprehended on 10 June 1968 and was returned to military control, where charges were again preferred against him.
He was convicted by a special court-martial on 25 June 1968 of the AWOL charges and was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 5 months and a forfeiture of pay. He was transferred to the Army Retraining Brigade at Fort Riley, Kansas to serve his confinement.
On 18 September 1968, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness, due to his frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities. He indicated that the applicant demonstrated a complete disregard for military authority and indicated no desire to return to duty. He recommended that the applicant receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The applicant acknowledged the commander’s recommendation and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
The appropriate authority approved the recommendation on 20 September 1968 and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 24 September 1968, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness. He had served 1 year and 16 days of total active service of which 290 days were lost due to AWOL and confinement. He still had not completed his basic training at the time of his discharge.
On 9 September 1974, he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. He contended that at the time he was in the service, he was too ill to be a good soldier. The ADRB found no evidence to support his contentions and denied his appeal on 10 January 1975.
He again applied to the ADRB on 9 July 1979 and was granted a personal appearance before that board, represented by counsel. He contended that he went AWOL because his mother and father were involved in an automobile accident, that he was an only child and that when he was refused leave, he departed AWOL to take care of his parents. He stated that he went AWOL the second time because he feared another court-martial and possible confinement. The ADRB determined that he had been properly discharged and again denied his appeal on 24 November 1980.
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. 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
__cla____ __hbo___ ___ao___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001060104 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/10/30 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1968/09/24 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-212 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | UNFIT |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 583 | 144.5000/A51.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110014727
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Accordingly, on 12 December 1968, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness with an undesirable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
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 | 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 | CY2003 | 2003088747C070403
The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on the date of separation confirms that he completed a total of 5 months and 17 days of creditable active military service, and that he accrued a total of 399 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement. On 12 March 1984, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed the applicant’s case and determined that the characterization and reason for the applicant’s discharge were both proper and equitable, and it voted to deny his request for an upgrade...
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 | CY2010 | 20100027620
The applicant departed Vietnam in July 1967 for assignment to Fort Dix. On 18 February 1977, the ADRB determined that while the applicant was properly discharged his discharge was inequitable under the circumstances and voted to upgrade his discharge to a general under honorable conditions based on his diagnosed personality disorder. Paragraph 3-7a of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel) provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024434
Charges were preferred against the applicant at Fort Riley on 17 March 1971 for being AWOL from 9 October 1969 to 18 September 1970 and 20 October 1970 to 25 February 1971. On 27 June 1977 the applicants discharge was reviewed by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) under the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) which voted to upgrade his undesirable discharge to a general discharge based on his previously-issued honorable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, states a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710655C070209
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 Board considered the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019762
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 February 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100019762 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On an unknown date, the applicant's chain of command recommended the applicant be discharged by reason of unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability), then in effect. On 10 March 1976, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071838C070403
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. He was in confinement from...