| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Mr. George D. Paxson | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs | Member | |
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his records be corrected to show that he was honorably discharged.
APPLICANT STATES: He “enlisted because I belived in this Country even at 17 years old to be fair first to Americans as a whole…”
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's available military records show:
On 4 September 1968, at the age of 17, the applicant enlisted in the Army. He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 76A (Supply Clerk).
During the period 30 January 1969 to 28 June 1970, he was issued nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on 6 occasions for leaving his guard post, sleeping on guard duty, failure to go to his appointed place of duty, leaving his place of duty without permission and stealing his NCOs billfold. His punishments were forfeitures, oral reprimands, reductions, and extra duty.
During the period 14 March to 6 July 1970, members of his chain of command formally counseled him on 15 occasions, for missing formations, bad appearance, disobedience, disrespect, conduct, and refusal to work.
During the period 27 February to 24 August 1969, he served in a unit in Germany and from 3 October 1969 to 7 August 1970, he served in a unit in Vietnam.
On 25 June 1970, a psychiatric report cleared him for administrative discharge.
On 9 July 1970, a physical examination cleared him for separation.
On 20 July 1970, the unit commander notified the applicant that he was recommending his discharge prior to the expiration of his term of service because of unfitness, based on his frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities and his established pattern for shirking. He was advised on his rights.
The applicant, with legal counsel, waived consideration of and personal appearance before a board of officers and he elected not to submit statements in his own behalf and waived legal counsel. He further indicated he understood that, as the result of issuance of an undesirable discharge, he might be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws, and that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.
On 4 August 1970, the appropriate separation authority approved the discharge and directed the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
On 9 August 1970, he was discharged with a characterization of service of under conditions other than honorable. His records indicate he had 1 year, 11 months and 6 days of creditable service.
On 20 December 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board found his discharge to be proper and equitable and denied his request for upgrade.
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 6a(1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.
This Board operates under the standard of presumption of regularity in governmental affairs. The standard states, in effect, that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board must presume that all actions taken by the military were proper. There is nothing in the records or in the evidence submitted by the applicant that overcomes this presumption.
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’s discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The Board notes the ADRB decision in his case and that the character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record.
2. The Board has also noted his contention of age: however, that does not compensate for his misconduct during his service, nor do they convince the Board that his discharge should be upgraded.
3. 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.
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
_dsj_____ _gdp___ _reb____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001065652 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 200165652 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072164C070403
APPLICANT STATES : That he was informed at his court-martial that his discharge would be upgraded after a certain number of years and it has not been done. On 21 August 1969, NJP was imposed against him for failure to obey a lawful order from the battalion commander and for failure to go to his place of duty. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065556C070421
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. Skill Olympics; Fairbanks Hospital Progress Notes, dictated on 7 December 1979; a letter, dated 8 June 1989, from a Member of Congress; a DD Form 293 (Application for Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated 23 July 1985; a letter, dated 22 February 1990, from the State of Indiana...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058663C070421
On 21 August 1970, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness and directed that the applicant be furnished a general discharge. On 25 February 1974 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade to honorable. The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included four nonjudicial punishments, four special court-martial convictions and 640 days lost due...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067589C070402
On 14 April 1969, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant be furnished an undesirable discharge. There is no indication in the available records that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade within its 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061082C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 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 | CY2001 | 2001058144C070420
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. APPLICANT STATES : That he requests that his discharge be reinstated to a general discharge because he was in the Army for two years mainly performing hard labor without pay. On 20 May 1969, the applicant acknowledged notification of separation action for unfitness, consulted with legal counsel, waived his right to a hearing...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090277C070212
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. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant's chain of command was unanimous in recommending approval of the action and in recommending that the applicant be discharged with an undesirable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068655C070402
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge. On 11 May 1970, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, and directed the issuance of an undesirable discharge. On 22 May 1985, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070208C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On an unknown date, the applicant voluntarily requested an assignment in Vietnam. On 5 February 1970, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059963C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: 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: