| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | ||
| Mr. Harry B. Oberg | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge or an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he made a mistake and that at the time of the decision, he was not privy to some of the information that could have made a difference in his choice. The applicant states, that had he undergone a psychiatric examination, the psychiatrist would have recommended that he appear before a board of officers convened under the provisions of Army regulation 635-209 for unsuitability.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 31 January 1962, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of
3 years. His military occupational specialty was 630.00 (Automotive Maintenance Helper). The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-3.
On 23 July 1963, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment, under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being disrespectful in language to a noncommissioned officer. His imposed punishment was 7 days restriction and extra duty.
Between June 1963 and January 1965, the applicant was convicted by three summary courts-martial of three specifications of being absent without leave from 3 to 13 July 1963, from 12 to 25 May 1964 and from 9 to 19 January 1965 and for one specification of being disrespectful in language toward his superior noncommissioned officer. His sentenced included confinements, forfeitures and a reduction to pay grade E-2.
On 27 January 1965, the applicant was seen by a psychiatrist. The applicant was diagnosed has having a long-standing character behavior disorder of the passive aggressive type with an emotionally unstable personality. The applicant was found mentally responsible able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in any board proceedings. There were no disqualifying mental or physical defects sufficient to warrant consideration by a Physical Evaluation Board or other disposition through medical channels. The psychiatrist recommended that the applicant appear before a board of officers convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 with a view to separate from the military service because of unsuitability.
On 1 February 1965, the company commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness, due to his frequent acts of misconduct with military authorities. Continued efforts by the commanding officer, chaplains and noncommissioned officers failed to produce successful results of rehabilitation. Further attempts for rehabilitation would unlikely succeed.
On the same day, the Battalion Commander, recommended that the applicant be separated under the provision of AR-635-208. Action under Army Regulation 635-209 that was recommended by the Chief, Mental Hygiene Consultation Service was not considered appropriate due to the applicant’s numerous acts of misconduct. The Battalion Commander believed that elimination as an undesirable was the best interest of the service.
The applicant was advised by his commanding officer that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-208 for unfitness. The applicant was counseled and advised by the commanding officer of the basis of the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him. . He was furnished a copy of the commanding officer’s report and copies of statements submitted to support the recommendation for discharge. He was given names of prospective witnesses that were to appear or submit statements that were to be used against the applicant. After have been afforded the opportunity of requesting counsel, he declined the opportunity. The applicant waived personal appearance, consideration, and representation by counsel before a board of officers. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but declined to do so.
On 25 February 1965, the Commanding General approved the discharge from service under the provision of Army regulation 635-208, for unfitness with an Undesirable Desirable Discharge Certificate. On 26 February 1965, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness with a discharge UOTHC. He had completed 2 years, 9 months and 29 days of creditable active service and 62 days of lost time.
Army Regulation 635-208, in effect, provided, in pertinent part, the policies, procedures, and guidance for the elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unfit for further military service. However, at the time of the discharge a discharge UOTHC was normally considered appropriate.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.
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 the aforementioned requirement.
2. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.
3. The contentions of the applicant have been noted. However, the evidence of record shows that the applicant exhibited an unacceptable pattern of misconduct. Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
4. 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__ __RWA__ __HBO___ DENY APPLICATION
INDEX
| CASE ID | AR2001064447 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/06/11 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1965/02/26 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-208 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A51.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1.144.5000 | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071354C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 14 September 1965, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003773C070206
On 27 November 1963, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635- 208 for unfitness and directed that the applicant be issued an undesirable discharge. On 29 November 1963, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge and a characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness due to frequent involvement in incidents of a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050017155C070206
The unit commander stated as a reason why it would not be considered feasible or appropriate to recommend elimination under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 was the applicant’s attitudes of complete disregard for authority and his attitudes toward life in general. On 7 December 1960, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 with issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. After review of the evidence...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057502C070420
His First Sergeant told him that if he took the Article 15 the First Sergeant would give him back his rank in about a month. The applicant was not eligible for a medical discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40 as there was no evidence he could not perform his military duties. A “209” discharge was not a medical discharge; it, too, was an administrative discharge although for unsuitability rather than unfitness.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606824C070209
He recommended that the applicant be separated from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability. On 22 July 1963 the applicants commanding officer recommended that the applicant be discharged with an undesirable type discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness. He stated that he was recommending discharge under Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness instead of Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability as recommended by the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067566C070402
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. In this letter, the applicant was informed that he could submit a request for an upgrade of his discharge to the Army Discharge Review Board in accordance with Army Regulation 15-180. However, records show the applicant signed a letter during his last duty assignment at Fort Hood, Texas, acknowledging that he could submit a request for an upgrade of his discharge to the Army Discharge Review Board.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090771C070212
The applicant was discharged on 27 August 1963. However, the evidence of record shows that prior to the applicant's discharge in August 1963, competent medical authority determined that he was then medically qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111111. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015168
The applicant requests correction of his undesirable discharge to unsuitability under Army Regulation 635-209 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unsuitability) or upgrade to general under honorable conditions. The applicant states his discharge should be upgraded because he served 2 years and 4 months of honorable service [before he reenlisted] and a total of 5 years, 4 months, and 24 days. A Soldier would be separated for unfitness when it had been determined that his or her record was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9510335C070209
On 7 August 1963 the applicant was treated for swelling to his feet, stating that his feet swell when he wears boots. A 15 October 1963 report of psychiatric examination indicates that the applicant stated to the examining psychiatrist that he had gone AWOL on two occasions for the express purpose of gaining a 209 discharge (unsuitability). On 15 October 1963 the applicants commanding officer recommended that the applicant be eliminated from the Army under the provisions of Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010099C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) affirm the upgrade of his discharge to under honorable conditions under the Department of Defense (DOD) Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP). The examiner recommended the applicant receive an administrative discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 (Personnel Separations, Discharge, Unsuitability). On 30 June 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded...