| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Rosa M. Chandler | Analyst |
| Ms. Shirley L. Powell | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Stanley Kelley | Member | |
| Mr. Elzey J. Arledge | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: That he believes that his discharge was unjustified because he was incarcerated in Dublin, Georgia, and military authorities were never informed of the complete facts surrounding his incarceration. In support of his request, he submits separation processing documents from Headquarters, United States Army School/Training Center, Fort Gordon, Georgia, dated 15 April, 4 May and 24 June 1965, and a copy of the charges and sentence that he received from the Superior Court of Laurens County (Dublin), Georgia.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 11 July 1963, he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for 3 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 310 (Field Communications Crewman). He completed basic and advanced individual training, and on 5 October 1963, he was assigned to Fort Carson, Colorado.
On 10 July 1964, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), was imposed against him for failure to obey a lawful order and regulation. His punishment included forfeiture of
$15.00 pay for 1 month and 14 days’ extra duty and restriction.
On 19 September 1964, the applicant left his unit absent without leave (AWOL). On 21 October 1964, he returned to military control at the Special Processing Detachment (SPD), Fort Gordon, Georgia. He remained in confinement until 29 November 1964. He was also AWOL from 12 December 1964-5 January 1965 and from 20-26 January 1965.
On 18 February 1965, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of
being AWOL from 19 September-21 October 1964 and from 20-26 January 1965. He was sentenced to forfeiture of $65.00 per month for 3 months and to be confined at hard labor for 3 months.
On 23 February 1965, the convening authority approved only that portion of the sentence that provided for forfeiture of $55.00 per month for 3 months. The applicant's sentence to confinement was suspended for 3 months unless sooner vacated. On the same date, he was released from confinement.
On 8 March 1965, the applicant left his unit AWOL. On 28 March 1965, civilian authorities arrested him and he was placed in civilian confinement. On 1 April 1965, in the Superior Court of Laurens County, he pled guilty to the charges of larceny of an automobile and burglary. He was sentenced to a total of 15 years in civilian confinement.
On 4 May 1965, while in civilian confinement, the applicant's commander inquired about his intent to appeal his conviction. The applicant indicated in an undated statement that he did not plan to appeal his conviction.
On 2 June 1965, the applicant's commander stated that both the applicant's conduct and efficiency ratings were unsatisfactory and he recommended that the applicant be eliminated under Army Regulation 635-206 with a UD.
On 24 June 1965, competent authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a UD under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to conviction by a civil court while on active duty.
On 30 June 1965, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to conviction by a civil court while on active duty. He had 1 year, 3 months and 16 days of active military service. He also had 247 days lost time due to being AWOL and in confinement.
Army Regulation 635-206, then in effect, stated, in pertinent part, that an individual will be considered for discharge when an individual is initially convicted by civil authorities of an offense which involves moral turpitude, regardless of the sentence received or maximum punishment permissible under any code. At the time, a UD was 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. 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 applicant was convicted of larceny of a vehicle and burglary and was imprisoned for 15 years. His conviction by civil authorities obligated military authorities to consider him for discharge. In such cases, retention is normally only considered in exceptionally meritorious cases when clearly in the best interests of the Army.
3. The applicant’s discharge process was administratively correct and it was in conformance with the applicable regulations then in effect with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.
4. 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.
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
__SLP __ __SK ___ __EJA___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001063023 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020319 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19650630 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-206 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A61.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.6100 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050017602C070206
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to honorable or general. On 2 December 1964, he was tried, convicted, and sentenced to 4 years confinement. There is no evidence of record that the applicant applied for a discharge upgrade to the Army Discharge Review Board within it's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026833
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. There is no evidence that the applicant 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, states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709670C070209
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any) APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: On 7 May 1963 the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States for 2 years at the age of 18. The conviction by civil authorities,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709670
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 | 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 | CY2005 | 20050004463C070206
However, the evidence does include a properly constituted DD Form 214 that shows on 23 February 1965, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Section III, Army Regulation 635-206, by reason of misconduct and that he received an undesirable discharge. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board of an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017413
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). However, a statement in the applicants file indicates that as of 6 December 1965 he was confined by civil authorities at the Pyke County Jail in Troy, AL pending civil action and by the time of his July 1966 discharge he was confined at the Kilby State Prison in Montgomery, AL. A subsequent entry in the applicants file indicates he was convicted and sentenced to 18 months for burglary and grand...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020508
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 March 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100020508 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. His contentions (all his problems were caused from drinking, he was drinking to cope with the stress of Vietnam and his injuries, he began drinking to help him sleep and forget, he believes this was the beginning of PTSD but he did not know what was wrong with him, he was not offered any mental health counseling, and he wants to obtain DVA benefits based on his combat...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008477
However, a Report of Proceedings of Board of Officers, dated 9 May 1967, states the recommendations of the Board of Officers that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 and issued an undesirable discharge are approved. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001743
There is no indication in his records that he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel. His record shows he was 18 years of age at the time of his enlistment and 20 years of age at the time of the offense for which he was convicted by a civil court.