| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to general.
APPLICANT STATES: That it is an injustice for him to continue to suffer the adverse consequences of a bad discharge. He had combat service. He suffers from problems with his health as a direct result of his service in Vietnam. He was young and immature. Under current standards, he would not receive the type of discharge he did. Personal problems impaired his ability to serve. He provides no supporting evidence.
COUNSEL CONTENDS: That the applicant’s discharge is too harsh. The offenses he committed were relatively minor and did not involve any extended periods of being absent without leave (AWOL), theft, or violence to others.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was born on 10 January 1950. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 January 1967. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63B (Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).
Between 29 April and 15 November 1967, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on seven occasions for failing to go to his appointed place of duty, failing to obey a lawful order, being AWOL from 1 to on or about 11 July 1967, breaking restriction, absenting himself from his assigned duty station, failing to report to his place of duty, and failing to go to his appointed place of duty, respectively.
On 24 August 1967, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of breaking restriction. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 1 month and to forfeit $50 pay for 1 month.
On or about 23 January 1968, the applicant arrived in Vietnam and was assigned to the 553d Heavy Equipment Maintenance (HEM) Company as a wheel vehicle repairman. On 2 February 1968, he was assigned to the 632d HEM Company as a wrecker.
On 9 April 1968, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of breaking restriction. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 1 month, to forfeit $50 pay for 1 month, and to be reduced to E-1.
On 3 May 1968, the applicant was reassigned to the 553d HEM Company as a wrecker.
On 10 and 23 July 1968, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to obey a lawful order for being in an off-limits area and for failing to obey a lawful order by being out after curfew, respectively.
On or about 2 September 1968, the company commander initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness. The applicant was advised by counsel of the contemplated action. He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived personal appearance before such a board; elected not to make a statement on his behalf; and waived representation by counsel.
On 24 September 1968, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of possessing 2.3 grams of marijuana on 7 July 1968, wrongfully appropriating a military vehicle, possessing 19.3 grams of marijuana on 7 August 1968, and operating a vehicle in a reckless manner. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months, to forfeit $73 pay for 6 months, and to be reduced to E-1.
On 19 November 1968, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
On 21 November 1968, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness. He had completed 1 year, 5 months, and 12 days of creditable active service and had 144 days of lost time.
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, sexual perversion, drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit-forming drugs or marijuana, an established pattern for shirking, an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts or failure to contribute adequate support to dependents, were subject to separation for unfitness. Such action would be taken when it was clearly established that despite attempts to rehabilitate or develop him as a satisfactory soldier further effort was unlikely to succeed.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, is concluded:
1. 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.
2. The Board notes the applicant’s young age at the time of his enlistment but also notes that he was given many chances to conform his behavior to military standards prior to his separation for unfitness. There is no evidence of record to show he had combat service while in Vietnam. The evidence of record shows that he was assigned to equipment maintenance companies there and that his service while in Vietnam was not fully honorable. Under current standards, he most likely would have received the same characterization of service with the most likely reason for discharge being in lieu of trial by court-martial.
3. 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. He had an opportunity to make a statement or even to request board consideration where he could have raised personal problems as a mitigating factor yet he waived both rights. Considering his record of disciplinary actions, the characterization of his discharge as under other than honorable conditions was and still is appropriate.
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
__jns___ __le____ __reb___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001060436 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010925 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19681121 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-212 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A51.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011441
Counsel requests upgrade of the applicant's discharge to a general discharge under honorable conditions. On 20 January 1982, the ADRB considered the applicant's military records and all other available evidence. The evidence of record shows the applicant's period of prior honorable service is documented in his military records and, as he requests, he may use his 8 August 1967 DD Form 214 in support of his efforts to obtain veteran's benefits.
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 | 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 | 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 | CY1997 | 9710380
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 | CY2008 | 20080017817
On 18 July 1967, the unit commander initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability due to character and behavior disorders. The evidence of record does not support the applicants contention that he was mentally ill when he was discharged. Since the applicants record of service included one nonjudicial punishment, two special courts-martial convictions, and 76 days of lost time, his record of service did not meet the standards...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060321C070421
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. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth 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.
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 | CY2006 | 20060008468C070205
The applicant requests, in effect, upgrade of the former service member's (FSM) undesirable discharge. The FSM's military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army, on 21 July 1965, in pay grade E-1, for 3 years. The FSM was discharged on 13 June 1968, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unfitness.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130001917
On 5 June 1968, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 28 April 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for 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 of Military Records in this case.