| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge be upgraded to honorable. Although the applicant indicates in his request that he received a Bad Conduct Discharge, in actuality he received an undesirable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he should have received an honorable discharge. He notes that his discharge was not justified. He states that he was “placed in [the] stockade at Camp Pickett, VA in 1952” and that at the time the military was discharging “all persons with BCD” by the hundreds and he was one of those individuals. He states that he is now 71 years old and “want[s] what is due [him] as a hero and a patriot.” He notes that he had service in Japan and Korea. He also states that he attempted to upgrade his discharge in “the 70’s” but was told his records had been “burnt up.” In support of his request he submits two letters recognizing him as the outstanding employee of the month for Pinkerton Security & Investigation Services, two letters indicating the applicant is a reliable and conscientious member of the community, and an undated news article in which he was recognized as the “Most Outstanding Fireman” for Baltimore City.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He initially entered active duty in June 1948 and was, in effect, discharged on
25 March 1952 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. His March 1952 DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States) indicates that he received an honorable discharge at the time.
During the applicant’s initial period of active duty he was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge, an Army of Occupation Medal with “Japan” clasp, and a Korean Service Medal.
On 26 March 1952 the applicant reenlisted for a period of 6 years. Between April 1952 and March 1954 the applicant accumulated more than 300 days of AWOL (absent without leave) time for which he was court-martialed on three different occasions.
A board of officers convened in August 1954 to determine whether the applicant should be discharged for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368. A mental status evaluation noted the applicant was mentally competent and responsible for his acts. The board noted that after being advised of his rights he “did not desire to make a statement.” The board indicated that they had considered his prior service and his “medals.” The board found "evidence of habits which rendered retention in the service undesirable because of unfitness" and recommended the applicant be discharged.
The recommendation was approved and on 20 August 1954 the applicant was discharged and issued an undesirable discharge certificate. His separation report indicates he was separated at Fort Knox, Kentucky. At the time of his separation he had approximately 46 months of creditable service and more than 800 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
Army Regulation 615-368, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness. Unfitness included misconduct and repeated petty offenses. Action to separate an individual was to be taken when, in the judgment of the commander, rehabilitation was unsuccessful, impractical or was unlikely to produce a satisfactory soldier. When separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.
Although historical files available to the Board indicate that the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s petition to upgrade his discharge in 1956, there is no record of any previous action by this Board. Additionally, while the applicant’s records were partially destroyed by the 1973 fire in St. Louis, they were sufficiently salvaged and are readable.
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. There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, that his discharge proceedings were not conducted in accordance with established laws and regulations in effect at the time. The separation board proceedings noted that the applicant was given an opportunity to speak on his own behalf and choose not to do so. The Board also notes that his separation board considered his prior service and his medals prior to rendering their recommendation.
2. The Board notes that the applicant had more than 2 years of lost time due to AWOL and confinement at the time of his separation and as such warranted the characterization of service he received.
3. While the Board recognizes and commends the applicant for his contributions to his community since his separation, as well as his service in Japan and Korea, it does not, in and of itself, warrant the relief requested.
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 that 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
___RVO _ __CLA __JTM___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001063402 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020228 |
| 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. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067351C070402
The applicant states, in effect, that he was a young, 17-year old when he enlisted; that he served well in combat during the Korean War and received a head wound; that, upon reassignment from Korea to Japan, his personality changed and he started exhibiting bizarre behavior; and that, when he finally returned to the United States at 2 1/2 years of service and was given his first home leave, he went AWOL (absent without leave) for 5 or 6 months. Once the Department of the Air Force has...
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 | CY2009 | 20090012053
The board of officers found that the evidence showed the applicant to have habits which rendered retention in the military undesirable and recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service because of unfitness and that he be given an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 29 April 1954 and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008071
On 15 July 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. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 with an undesirable discharge. The regulation stated that discharge, if recommended, would be for unfitness,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011763
The board found that the applicant gives evidence of habits and gives evidence of traits of character which rendered retention in the service undesirable and recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service because of unfitness and that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. Evidence of record shows the applicant completed 3 years, 3 months, and 9 days of creditable active service when he was discharged. Although the applicants daughter contends that they have no...
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002193
The applicants military records are not available to the Board for review. A DA Form 37 (Report of Proceedings of Board of Officers), dated 10 February 1955, shows a board of officers convened on 8 February 1955 and recommended separating the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Men - Discharge - Unfitness (Undesirable Habits or Traits of Character)). There is no evidence in the applicant's military service records and he has not provided evidence that shows...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110023449
The applicant states that he enlisted in the Regular Army in 1952 and served for almost 2 years and was unjustly given an undesirable discharge because he was unable to read. Army Regulation 615-368, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel by reason of unfitness. _______ _ _ X______ ___ 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059810C070421
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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. On 11 January 1954, the applicant’s commander requested that he appear before a board of officers convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368, to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010738
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded. The applicant had already exceeded the 15-year statute of limitations to petition the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge when he submitted his DD Form 293 to that board on 12 June 2006. Individuals discharged under this regulation would normally be issued an UD.