| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Antoinette Farley | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Kathleen A. Newman | Member | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: He states, that sufficient time has passed, since his discharge which would allow for an upgrade. In essence, he requests that his military records be reviewed and that serious consideration be given to the matter of his discharge.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years on 7 February 1973. He completed Basic Combat Training and began Advanced Individual Training (AIT) on 13 April 1973. Prior to completion of AIT he was listed as being absent without leave (AWOL).
On 27 June 1973 he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent without leave from 21 May to 29 May 1973 and again from 1 June to 21 June 1973. His punishment included forfeiture of $75.00 pay per month for two months, with the second month suspended for 45 days; restriction for 30 days, suspended for
45 days; and extra duty for 15 days, suspended for 45 days. He did not appeal.
The applicant’s DA 2-1, Item 6 (Military Occupational Specialties) shows that he was awarded MOS 12B20 (Combat Engineer) on 31 August 1973 and transferred to Germany, for duty, on 27 September 1974.
On 26 February 1975, while stationed in Germany, the applicant was convicted
by a special court-martial of one specification of being AWOL from
17 December 1974 to 19 January 1975. His approved sentence included reduction to pay grade E-1, to be confined at hard labor for 6 months, and to forfeit $229.00 pay per month for 6 months. He was transferred from pre-trial confinement at the United States Army, Area Confinement Facility, Mannheim, Germany, to the United States Army Retraining Brigade (USARB) at Fort Riley, Kansas.
On 3 April 1975 the applicant’s commander recommended that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 13 paragraphs 13-5a(1). He stated that all requirements for unfitness were met based on the applicant’s established pattern of shirking.
On 11 April 1975 the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness. He consulted with legal counsel concerning the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him. He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and representation by counsel. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.
On 8 April 1975, a mental status evaluation, found the applicant essentially normal both mentally and physically.
On 29 April 1975 the appropriate authority waived further rehabilitative action, approved the separation recommendation, and directed the issuance of a undesirable discharge.
On 30 April 1975 the applicant was inadvertently separated with a general discharge, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13, paragraph 13-5a(1), for unfitness due to shirking. He had completed 1 year, 11 months, and 17 days of creditable active service and he had 97 days lost time due to being AWOL or in military confinement. His awards and decorations include the National Defense Service Medal.
Army Regulation 635-200 in effect at the time sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13, paragraph 13-5a(1) of this regulation, in effect at the time, provided for separation for unfitness due to shirking. The regulation requires that separation action will be taken when in the commander’s judgment the individual will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further military training and/or become a satisfactory soldier. Service of soldiers separated because of unfitness under this regulation was normally characterized under other than honorable conditions or under honorable conditions.
There is no record that he ever submitted a request for review of his discharge by the Army Discharge Review Board within that board’s 15-year statute of limitation.
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 applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and VA benefits. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.
2. An error was made in that the applicant actually received a general discharge rather than the undesirable discharge that was directed. No change to his record is warranted.
3. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge was lenient considering the applicant's overall record of military service.
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
__INW __ ___KAN _ ___RTD _ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR200164026 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020627 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-208 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Shirker |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 142.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015196
The applicant states: * his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows his character of service as under other than honorable conditions * he was told he was being discharged under "chapter 17" and his discharge would be changed to honorable in 30 days 3. There is no evidence that shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014483
The facts and circumstances of the applicant's discharge are not available for review with this case; however, the DD Form 214 he was issued on 15 October 1975 shows he was discharged under the provision of paragraph 13-5A(1) of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) for unfitness, with a character of service of under conditions other than honorable. This regulation prescribed that an undesirable discharge was normally issued unless the particular circumstances warranted a general...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025300
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 25 October 1974, he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062362C070421
APPLICANT STATES : That he requested a discharge and it was approved; however, he was not informed of the type of discharge until he sat down to sign the discharge. The regulation also states that an individual separated by reason of unfitness will normally be furnished an undesirable discharge certificate. The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included two nonjudicial punishments, two summary court-martial convictions and 30 days lost time and determined that his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014547
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant was discharged on 16 April 1973 with an undesirable discharge for unfitness under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200. When separation for unsuitability was warranted, an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individuals entire record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050007017C070206
The applicant requests that his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge to honorable. The facts and circumstance concerning the applicant’s discharge proceedings are not in the available records; however, on 25 March 1975, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, for unfitness and directed his reduction to the lowest enlisted grade and the issuance of an undesirable discharge. The applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008956
The applicant's separation packet is not contained in the available records; however, his records contain a duly-constituted DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, paragraph 13-5a(1) with a separation program designator (SPD) code of "JBL." There is no record the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within board's 15-year statute...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016014
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge or a general discharge. _______ _ _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 this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100023971
On 18 February 1975, the company commander notified the applicant that separation action was being initiated against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for unfitness. He requested many times for a discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005556
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD) to a general discharge or an honorable discharge. On 3 April 1975, the unit commander notified the applicant he was initiating separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 13-5a for unfitness due to an established pattern of shirking.