| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Member | ||
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he believes that the reason of his discharge was totally unjust. He also indicates that he never received his Expert Infantryman Badge (EIB) and a promotion to which he was entitled, which he also feels was unjust. Finally, he claims that his commander never followed normal policy or procedure.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 2 April 1971, he entered the enlistment under review. At that time, he had completed 2 years, 2 months, and 7 days of prior honorable active duty service, held the rank of private/E-2 (PV2), and was serving in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).
The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) confirms that the highest rank he held on active duty was specialist four/E-4 (SP4/E-4), which he attained on 21 September 1972. It also verifies that he was reduced to
private/E-2 on 11 October 1974 and to private/E-1 on 6 November 1974, due to his own misconduct. There is no indication in the applicant’s record that he completed training in or was eligible for the EIB or that he was recommended for promotion at any time subsequent to his being promoted to SP4 in 1972.
The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition. However, it does contain an extensive disciplinary history that confirms that during the enlistment under review, between 7 April 1971 and 10 July 1975, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on at least 13 separate occasions for a multitude of offenses.
In addition, on 5 August 1971, the applicant was found guilty by a special
court-martial of the following offenses: absenting himself from his place of duty; willfully damaging a chair and table; willfully and wrongfully destroying a coffee cup and two model aircraft training aids; resisting lawful apprehension by an armed forces police officer; and assault.
The record also contains a copy of a Report of Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions (DA Form 268), dated 5 December 1974, which confirms that on that date the applicant was pending separation processing under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200.
The separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s separation processing is not in the record. However, there is a properly constituted separation document (DD Form 214) on file that was authenticated by the applicant with his signature on the date of his separation and which identifies the reason and characterization of his discharge.
The DD Form 214 confirms that on 2 September 1975, the applicant was undesirably discharged under the provisions of chapter 13-5a(1), Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of unfitness-frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with authorities. This document also confirms that he had completed 4 years, 3 months, and 19 days of creditable active military service on the enlistment and he had accrued 42 days of time lost due to being absent without leave (AWOL) and in confinement.
Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 13-5a(1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with authorities were subject to separation for unfitness. An UD was normally 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. The Board notes the applicant’s contentions that the reason for his discharge was unjust, and that he should have received the EIB and been promoted prior to his discharge. However, it finds insufficient evidence to support these claims.
2. The applicant’s record contains no evidence that suggests that he was entitled to be awarded the EIB, or that he was recommended for promotion subsequent to 1972. Therefore, the Board finds insufficient evidence to support his claims in regard to these two issues.
3. The applicant’s record is void of a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the Army. However, it does include a properly constituted DD Form 214, which he authenticated with his signature on the date of his discharge. This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge, and the Board presumed government regularity in the discharge process.
4. The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, based on the applicant’s undistinguished record of service and his extensive disciplinary history, the Board finds that his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.
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
__RVO__ __RJW__ __DPH__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001065634 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/04/09 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1975/09/02 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C13 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Unfitness |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078053C070215
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. On 30 April 1975, the applicant was advised by certified mail at the above address that he was being discharged from the United States Army for desertion with a UD. The Board notes the applicant's many post-service accomplishments, to include his educational, artistic, and community-service achievements and,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056168C070420
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant was so discharged on 21 September 1974 with a total of 8 years, 1 month, and 1 day service and 16 days lost time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086192C070212
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: A TAMC Form 108 (Request for Mental Health Consultation) on file shows that the applicant’s unit commander requested the applicant be seen in connection with his separation processing under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200. This document contains the authority and reason for the applicant’s discharge, and the Board presumes government regularity in the applicant’s separation processing.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091818C070212
This provision of law allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of justice to do so. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015721C071029
Jeffrey C. Redmann | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was promoted to SP5 on 3 August 1971, shortly before his release from active duty, as evidenced by the promotion orders provided by the applicant, and the separation orders on file in his record. Although Items 5a, 5b and 5c of his DD Form 214 appear to be blank and his USAR discharge orders list his rank as...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080553C070215
The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant at the time confirmed that he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu of court-martial, and accordingly was assigned an SPD code of 246. It also stipulates that a bronze service star is authorized with this award for each campaign a member was credited with while serving in the RVN. Therefore, the Board concludes that it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s separation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075317C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 4 February 1975, his commander requested that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14 for his fraudulent enlistment into the military service. The commander stated that at the time of the applicant's enlistment, the applicant failed to report having any previous service, or having received a discharge under other than...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060735C070421
The applicant’s military records show that he served on active duty in the USMC for 4 years, from 6 June 1966 to 5 June 1970, at which time he was honorably separated at the expiration of his enlistment. Although not entered in his DA Form 20, the applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains a copy of General Order Number 681, dated 30 April 1972, which confirms that at the completion of his tour in the RVN he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060016298
The applicant's record shows he was inducted into the Army of the United States on 8 April 1971. The evidence shows that the applicant was promoted to pay grade E-4 effective 7 November 1971. In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show, to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise appear, that the record is in error or unjust.
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...