| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Joyce A. Wright | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member | |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: As the spouse of the deceased former service member (FSM), that the FSM’s undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That the FSM’s discharge was unjust because of the pressure and stress that he was under due to working conditions and severe illness of his daughter. The Red Cross failed to assist the FSM and the military refused to assist him by denying an emergency leave. The FSM’s problem was caused by a military officer who had no respect for him or his family. The applicant believes that the FSM’s good time should account for something and that the FSM’s undesirable discharge should be upgraded to honorable. In support of the FSM’s application, the applicant submits two DD Forms 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States), a copy of the FSM’s Discharge Certificate from the US Air Force (USAF), and two character references.
COUNSEL CONTENDS: The Disabled American Veterans (DAV), as counsel for the applicant, contends that at the time the FSM’s original claim was submitted, he realized the errors he had committed during his prior military service, misconduct. The FSM’s spouse continues to seek equity as an upgrade of the FSM’s discharge, which will allow her to be eligible for Veterans benefits (VA) and to improve her quality of life. The FSM, before his death, had worked in the community for many years in an effort to assist and encourage others to be more productive and seek a better way of life. He served as a Deacon at his church for many years and the documents provided attest to his long-time service. Letters of recommendation from high ranking officials, which were provided by the FSM’s spouse, attest to the FSM’s devotion to community and family. Counsel also states that the applicant’s spouse now seeks reasonable equity for her late husband and to claim his VA benefits to improve her qualify of life, which they believe to be his original intent when filing his original claim many years ago. The FSM’s spouse should not continue to be penalized for her late husband’s indiscretions forty years ago and seeks to claim equity. Counsel requests the Board’s careful and sympathetic consideration of all the evidence of record be used in rendering a fair and impartial decision.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The FSM's military records were lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire of 1973. Records available to the Board were obtained from alternate sources and show he initially enlisted in the USAF on 10 June 1949, and was discharged under honorable conditions on 27 March 1950. He enlisted in the Army on 29 January 1953. He continued to serve until he was honorably discharged on 13 April 1953, in order to reenlist. He reenlisted on 14 April 1953.
The facts and circumstances pertaining to the FSM’s discharge are not present in the available records. However, his DD Form 214 shows that on 2 November 1954, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368, for unfitness. He was furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He had a total of 2 years, 5 months, and 2 days of creditable service.
There is no evidence that the FSM applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 615-368, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel by reason of unfitness. That regulation
provided for the discharge of individuals who had demonstrated their unfitness
by giving evidence of undesirable habits of character manifested by misconduct.
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 Board notes the applicant’s and counsel’s contentions; however, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support her contentions or to show that the FSM’s discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.
2. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the FSM’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
3. The type of separation directed and the reasons for that separation were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
4. 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.
5. 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
___ro__ ___jm___ ___ca_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001061843 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020228 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19530413 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-368 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004103833C070208
The applicant requests that the undesirable discharge of her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM) be upgraded to honorable. The attending psychiatrist opined that the FSM was showing a chronic form of psychosis and as such he was not responsible for his conduct. The available records fail to show that this Board ever received or considered the FSM’s application for correction of military records dated 19 September 2002.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008088
The applicant, the widow of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. There is no evidence the FSM applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004703C070206
Larry J. Olson | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. This case will be considered by the Board using a reconstructed record that consists of the FSM separation document (DD Form 214). An Undesirable Discharge (UD) was normally considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009184
The applicant requests the characterization of service of her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM), be upgraded from an undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. On 14 November 1954, his immediate commander requested a board of officers be convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Men - Discharge - Unfitness (Undesirable Habits or Traits of Character)) for the purpose of determining the applicant's fitness for retention. On an unknown date in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001307
On 28 June 1953, the FSM's unit recommended a board of officers be convened to determine whether the FSM should be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Personnel - Discharge - Unfitness). The certificate, dated 12 June 1953, issued by the Psychiatry and Neurology Service, USAH, Camp Atterbury, essentially stated: * the FSM's diagnosis was anti-social personality manifested by immaturity, impulsive behavior, lack of adequate standards of behavior, and...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050009968
The applicant’s military records are not available to the Board for review. The applicant's DD Form 214 confirms he was separated with an UD, under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368, by reason of unfitness, on 8 April 1953. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015434
The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 with an undesirable discharge. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140005503
He returned to the Continental United States in March 1954. d. In September 1954, he was convicted by an SPCM for being AWOL from 12 June to 4 September 1954. e. In February 1955, he was convicted by an SPCM for being AWOL from 24 January to 16 February 1955. f. In March 1955, while in confinement, the FSMs commanding officer requested the FSM be required to appear before a board of officers convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Undesirable Habits or Traits of Character...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004035C070205
All of the FSM’s military records are not available to the Board for review. The board determined that the circumstances of his case gave evidence of unfitness within the meaning of Army Regulation 615-368 and recommended that he receive an undesirable discharge for undesirable traits of character. However, the evidence of record shows that the board of officers considered the FSM’s overall good record of service up until the point of his misconduct, when it determined that his act of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019683
The FSM's complete military records are not available to the Board for review. On 12 February 2013, the ABCMR considered his petition for a discharge upgrade but found no evidence of error or injustice and denied his request. The regulation stated that discharge, if recommended, would be for unfitness, except that discharge because of unsuitability (under Army Regulation 615-369 (Enlisted Personnel - Discharge - Inaptitude or Unsuitability)), without referral to another board, might be...