| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Rosa M. Chandler | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member |
2. The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.
3. The applicant states that he believes "he was forced to make an ethical decision [which], though not correct, was the only option . . ." he felt that he needed to get home to help his family. He adds that today’s Army would have granted him emergency leave.
4. In support of his application, the applicant submits four character reference letters from a local attorney, the officer-in-charge of the Hopkins County (Kentucky) Jail, the Hopkins County Attorney, and a sergeant first class stationed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. All of these character references speak to the fact that he was young and immature when he served in the Army; that he has more than 40 years of good post-service conduct; and that he labored 15 years as a coal miner and 25 years as an ironworker before being forced to retire due to health problems. He has been a deputy jailer at the Hopkins County Detention Center since 1997, serving in a position of responsibility and authority as a shift captain. He is a model citizen and Christian and has never received as much as a speeding ticket.
5. The applicant’s military records show that he was born on 26 July 1942 and enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 5 August 1959; he was 17 years of age at the time of his enlistment and had completed 8 years of schooling. He was trained in military occupational specialty (MOS) 111.07 (Light Weapons Infantryman) and, on 18 January 1960, he was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
6. The applicant first experienced disciplinary problems when he left his unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status from 27-28 June 1960. On 19 July 1960, he was convicted of this offense by a summary court-martial and sentenced to reduction from pay grade E-3 to pay grade E-2 and forfeiture of $55.00 pay.
7. The applicant again departed his unit in an AWOL status again from 12 September-17 October 1960. On 21 October 1960, he was convicted of this offense by a special court-martial. As punishment, he was sentenced to reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1, confinement at hard labor for 6 months and forfeiture of $55.00 pay per month for 6 months.
8. On 17 December 1960, the applicant escaped from the Fort Bragg Stockade and remained AWOL until apprehended by civilian authorities in Madisonville, Kentucky, on 13 January 1961. He was returned to military control at the Special Processing Detachment, Fort Knox, Kentucky, where, on 7 February 1961, he was convicted by a special court-martial of the above offense. He was again sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and forfeiture of $55.00 pay per month for 6 months.
9. On 25 January 1961, while the applicant was confined at the Special Processing Detachment, he underwent a mental status evaluation by professionally trained personnel and was determined to be suffering from a passive aggressive reaction that existed prior to service. He had been in the military 18 months and he had a history of court-martial actions for being AWOL. He rejected military authority and discipline. Furthermore, he was determined to have no disqualifying mental or physical defects sufficient to warrant disposition through medial channels. He was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right. He also had the mental capacity to understand the nature of board proceedings and he was able to cooperate in his own defense. The mental status evaluation recommended separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness.
10. Administrative separation action was initiated against the applicant and, on 31 January 1961, he waived his rights to a hearing before a board of officers, representation by counsel, and he declined to submit a statement in his own behalf. On 23 February 1961, the appropriate authority accepted the applicant's waiver, approved the recommendation for separation, and directed the issuance of a UD for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208. On 2 March 1961, the applicant was discharged for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, with a UD. He had completed 1 year, 1 month and 10 days of active military service and he had 169 days lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
11. The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for a discharge upgrade on two occasions. On 6 October 1961, the ADRB denied the applicant's request for reinstatement and an upgrade of his discharge to honorable. On 13 July 1977, the ADRB again denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge to honorable.
12. Amy Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-6, 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, or is other wise so meritorious that any other characterization would clearly be inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.
13. Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness. The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members found to be unfit for further military service, and without rehabilitative potential, would be separated. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant was a youth of 17 when he enlisted in the Regular Army and he possessed only an 8th grade education. He served approximately 1 year without incident before going AWOL three times to return to Hopkins County, Kentucky.
2. Since his discharge on 2 March 1961, the applicant has been a hard-working, model citizen in Madisonville, Kentucky. For approximately the past 5 years, he has worked in law enforcement as a correctional officer in the Hopkins County Jail. Over the past 40 years since his undesirable discharge, he has had no trouble with the law, not receiving so much as a speeding ticket.
3. The applicant has suffered long enough with the stigma of a UD. In light of his good post-service conduct, and considering the nature of his indisciplines while on active duty, it would be appropriate to upgrade his discharge to a general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions. His misconduct diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.
4. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and in the interest of justice and equity, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records, but only as indicated below.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by:
a. Voiding the UD now held by the individual concerned; and
b. Issuing to him a GD under honorable conditions for the period under review.
2. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.
BOARD VOTE:
__FNE___ ___LE__ __TL___ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
_____Fred N. Eichorn___
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2001061182 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020328 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19610302 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-208 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A51.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (PARTIALGRANT) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058200C070420
The Board considered the following evidence: On 19 September 1962, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness, with a UD. He had completed 1 year, 9 months and 16 days of active military service and he had 89 days lost time due to being AWOL and in confinement.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100798C070208
The unit commander also states the applicant was good at performing those duties that he was assigned most of the time and that there appeared to be nothing wrong with him physically or mentally. The applicant may have performed assigned tasks well most of the time, even so, his personal conduct and attitude rendered both his conduct and efficiency rating unsatisfactory and he received no awards. The Board concludes that the applicant has provided no evidence to establish a basis for the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084250C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board convened on 24 April 1957 and after hearing testimony from the applicant, whereas he stated that he wanted out of the Army, the board of officers found that he was unfit for further service and recommended that he be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness. The applicant's commander submitted a recommendation to discharge him...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068792C070402
On 31 October 1960, the applicant was recommended for separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 with a UD. On 8 December 1960, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's discharge with the issuance of a UD. The Board concluded that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016316
At the time he had completed 1 year, 3 months, and 7 days of net active service this period; 6 months of other service; and 3 months and 18 days of foreign service. The evidence of record shows the applicant was diagnosed with and treated for whooping cough (pertussis). The evidence of record also shows that Army officials advised the applicant to report to a military medical facility for treatment.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004101950C070208
On 5 January 1962, the applicant's commander recommended that the applicant be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-208 and furnished an undesirable discharge. The appropriate authority, a major general, approved the recommendation for the applicant's discharge on 6 February 1962 and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 13...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067641C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: There is no indication 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 limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079621C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 29 March 1961, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation to discharge the applicant with a UD. The record does not support, and the applicant has not presented any evidence that he was told that his discharge would automatically be upgraded.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014635
When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. There is no evidence which shows that the applicant's discharge proceedings were not in compliance with the applicable regulation in effect at the time. _________XXX______________ 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078823C070215
He completed 2 years, 11 months and 2 days of total active service and he had approximately 84 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement. On 18 February 1963, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. However, there is no evidence of record that shows that he was an alcoholic while he was in the Army.