| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable or general.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he recently found out that he could get his discharge upgraded. He contends that he could not adjust to military life. In support of his application, he submits a letter of explanation and a Standard Form 180 (Request Pertaining to Military Records), dated 8 September 2001.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted on 31 March 1961 for a period of 3 years. He successfully completed basic training and was transferred to Fort Rucker, Alabama, for advanced individual training in aviation aircraft maintenance.
On 8 September 1961, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of wrongfully appropriating a watch. He was sentenced to be reduced to the grade of E-1, to be confined at hard labor for 6 months and to forfeit $50 per month for 6 months. On 11 September 1961, the convening authority approved the sentence. On 13 December 1961, the unexecuted portion of the sentence to confinement at hard labor was suspended until 18 March 1962.
On 30 December 1961, the applicant was arrested by civil authorities in Alabama for Grand Larceny (auto theft).
On 13 March 1962, the applicant pled guilty and was convicted of Grand Larceny in Alabama. He was sentenced to serve two years in the Alabama State Penitentiary.
The applicant’s Service Record shows that he was confined by civil authorities from 30 December 1961 to 6 January 1962 and from 5 February 1962 to
30 March 1962.
On 16 March 1962, the applicant’s unit commander recommended that he be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, for misconduct. He based his recommendation for separation on the applicant’s civil conviction for Grand Larceny in the State of Alabama on 13 March 1962.
The intermediate commander recommended that the applicant be separated from the military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 and that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
The separation authority approved the recommendation on 16 March 1962 and directed that the applicant be issued an undesirable discharge.
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 30 March 1962 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for misconduct due to being convicted by a civil court during his current term of active military service. He had served 6 months and 22 days of total active service with 158 days lost due to confinement.
There is no indication in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at that time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for misconduct. Section VI of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel for conviction by civil court. 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. The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service and determined that the 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.
2. The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included one special court-martial conviction and 158 days lost time and determined that his military record was not satisfactory. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to a general discharge.
3. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation are appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
4. The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record that the actions taken in his case were in error or unjust.
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
FNE____ TSK_____ JTM_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001062596 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020110 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19620330 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-206 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Misconduct due to being convicted by a civil court during his current term of active military service |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0200 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006720
On 18 January 1971, the applicant's commander initiated action to discharge the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 due to conviction by civil authorities. Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 16 July 1971, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to conviction by civil authorities. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016509
On 5 March 1962, the applicants immediate commander recommended the applicant be administratively separated from military service under the provisions of paragraph 20a of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations Discharge Misconduct (Fraudulent Entry, Conviction by Civil Court, AWOL, Desertion)) for misconduct. It states, in pertinent part, that item 24(1) (Statement of Service Net Service this Period) shows the total service completed between the dates shown in item 19c (Date...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016306
The applicant's military personnel records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 February 1968 for a period of 2 years. The applicant's service medical records were not available for review. Army Regulation 635-200 states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068734C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to show he was discharged by reason of physical disability. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's available military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009904
Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at that time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel due to misconduct (fraudulent entry, conviction by civil court, and absence without leave or desertion). On 19 January 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied his request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge. Records show he was 20 years of age at the time he was convicted by a civil court for his offense.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606088C070209
On 29 September of that year he reenlisted for six years. On 28 January the applicant stated that he had been advised of his rights, that he had been advised that he had been recommended for separation from the Army without board action, and that such separation would probably result in an undesirable discharge. On 25 February 1963 the separation authority approved the recommendation, waived the requirement for a board of officers, and directed that the applicant receive an Undesirable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608077C070209
On 5 March 1974 the applicants commanding officer recommended that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 because of his civil conviction. The applicant was discharged at Fort Gordon on 28 March 1974. The requirement for a board of officers could be waived by the separation authority provided the individual concerned was physically in civil custody at the time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009620
There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The regulation provided for the separation of personnel for conviction by a civil court. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006253
The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 7 May 1975, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge and a characterization of service of under conditions other than honorable under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 after completing 3 years and 2 days of active service with 521 days of lost time under Title 10, U.S. Code, section 972. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010498C070208
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 30 August 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20040010498 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. 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 limitations. It is also noted that...