| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman | Member | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable or general.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his youth and immaturity, the availability of alcohol and illegal drugs in the military and his alcohol abuse were factors which led to his discharge.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
At age 17, with parental consent, the applicant enlisted on 22 March 1966 for a period of 3 years. He successfully completed basic training at Fort Bliss, Texas.
While in advanced individual training, on 16 August 1966, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 11 June 1966 to 29 July 1966. He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 6 months and to forfeit $64 per month for 6 months. On
20 August 1966 the convening authority approved the sentence.
On 27 February 1967 the applicant was convicted by a SPCM of being AWOL from 31 August 1966 to 20 December 1966 and escaping from lawful confinement in the Post Stockade. He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 4 months and to forfeit $60 per month for 4 months. On 6 March 1967 the convening authority approved the sentence. On 10 April 1967 the unexecuted portion of the sentence to confinement at hard labor for 4 months was suspended for 3 months.
On 7 February 1968 the applicant was convicted by a SPCM of being AWOL from 9 July 1967 to 27 October 1967, from 28 October 1967 to 31 December 1967 and from 1 January 1968 to 9 January 1968. He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 6 months and to forfeit $64 per month for 6 months. On 7 February 1968 the convening authority approved the sentence. On 10 April 1968 the unexecuted portion of the sentence to confinement at hard labor for
6 months was suspended for 6 months.
The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records. However, his records indicate that on 16 April 1968 he was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. He had served 6 months and 21 days of total active service and had 544 days lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 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 6 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.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, 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. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.
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. While the Board is empathic, the applicant’s stated reasons of youth and immaturity are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
2. The Board considered the applicant’s contentions that the availability of alcohol and illegal drugs in the military and his alcohol abuse were factors which led to his discharge. However, there is no evidence of record, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support these contentions.
3. The Board reviewed the applicant’s brief record of service and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge.
4. The Board also determined that his record of service which included three special court-martial convictions and 544 days of lost time was not satisfactory. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to a general discharge.
5. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s separation was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.
6. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation appear to be appropriate.
7. 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.
8. 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
RVO___ DPH_____ RKS_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001060321 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011016 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19680416 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-212 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Unfitness due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0200 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080002223
On 28 May 1968, 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 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002487C070206
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set for the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | CY2013 | 20130015033
Paragraph 1b of this regulation states that an enlisted person will be discharged with a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial imposing a bad conduct discharge. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable or a general discharge. _______ _ _X______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013114C071029
On about 16 November 1967, the applicant's commander recommended that he appear before a board of officers for the purpose of determining whether he should be discharged before the expiration of his term of service for unfitness. He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and waived a personal appearance before a board of officers. Evidence of this incident was not found in the applicant's record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011010
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. This statement states that the applicant was a member of the Jehovahs Witnesses and at the time of his induction he was not a baptized member. 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 | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058663C070421
On 21 August 1970, 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 a general discharge. On 25 February 1974 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade to honorable. The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included four nonjudicial punishments, four special court-martial convictions and 640 days lost due...
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...