| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Beverly A. Young | Analyst |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member | |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That he has recently found out that the reason for his undesirable behavior was due to the physical and sexual abuse he suffered as a child. He states that he is ashamed of how he acted as a teenager and hopes that the Board will consider this when deciding to overturn the status of his discharge.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant entered active duty on 13 January 1967 and completed training as an equipment operator, and served in Okinawa from 17 July 1967 through 16 March 1969.
On various occasions between June 1967 and October 1967, the applicant received four nonjudicial punishments for failing to obey a lawful order, for disobeying a lawful order, for violating a lawful general regulation, and for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.
On 3 January 1969, he was convicted by a special court-martial of wrongfully appropriating a U.S. Government truck and two specifications of AWOL for a total of 36 days. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for six months and forfeiture of $70.00 pay per month for six months. The unexecuted portion of the sentence pertaining to confinement at hard labor for six months was suspended for two months.
On 25 January 1969, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation. He was found to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.
After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his rights to a personal appearance before a board of officers and representation by counsel and elected not to submit statements in his own behalf. He also acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration if a discharge under other than honorable conditions were issued.
On 20 February 1969, the unit commander recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service prior to his expiration term of service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness based on frequent incidents of discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.
The separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The applicant was discharged on 16 March 1969. He had a total of 1 year, 11 months and 25 days of creditable service with 69 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge 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 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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
2. 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.
3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for his separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
4. In view of the applicant's numerous acts of indiscipline, it does not appear that his undesirable discharge was too severe.
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
WTM____ AAO____ CLG_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001061082 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011101 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | CY2002 | 2002072164C070403
APPLICANT STATES : That he was informed at his court-martial that his discharge would be upgraded after a certain number of years and it has not been done. On 21 August 1969, NJP was imposed against him for failure to obey a lawful order from the battalion commander and for failure to go to his place of duty. There is no evidence 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...
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:
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 | 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 | CY2002 | 2002067835C070402
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. 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...
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 | 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 | CY2010 | 20100000157
On 20 March 1967, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant be furnished an undesirable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The applicant was advised by counsel of his separation for unfitness on 10 March 1967 and the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation on 20 March 1967 and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002893
He completed 1 year, 8 months, and 2 days of active military service. On 11 February 1975 and 19 October 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.