| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Linda D. Simmons | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was young and immature at the time, which led to personal problems and an inability to serve. He states that his records of non-judicial punishment were the result of isolated incidents and that if he would have had a chance at rehabilitation he believes he would have been able to "perform effectively." The applicant states that he did receive the National Defense Service Medal and two weapon qualification badges. He states that he has worked the same job now for 28 years and is very ill with hepatitis, which he contracted while in the Army. He notes that he would like his discharge upgraded for himself, and for his family, and believes that he should not have received an undesirable discharge, but should have at least received a general discharge. He submits no evidence in support of his request.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He entered active duty on 9 March 1971, at the age of 17, with all but two of his aptitude test scores over 100. His GT (general technical) score was 101. He successfully completed training as an armor recon specialist and was initially assigned to Fort Carson, Colorado. His conduct and efficiency ratings, during his initial training, and while assigned to Fort Carson, were excellent. In spite of one record of punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice), in September 1971 for failing to obey an order to get his hair cut, the applicant was promoted to pay grade E-3 in December 1971.
In March 1972 the applicant was reassigned to Europe. Between March 1972 and November 1972, the applicant was punished on six separate occasions under Article 15 of the UCMJ. His offenses included failing to go to his appointed place of duty, disrespect, and disobeying orders. As a result of one of the incidents he was reduced to pay grade E-2.
In November 1972 he was barred from reenlisting.
On 15 December 1972 the applicant was charged with a variety of violations of the UCMJ, including being disrespectful, failing to go to his appointed place of duty, and dereliction of duty. The charges resulted in a request for a special court-martial.
However, on 19 December 1972, the applicant's unit commander initiated action to administratively separate the applicant from active duty for unfitness. The commander cited the applicant's frequent incidents of "discreditable actions involving military authorities" and his pending special court-martial as the basis for his recommendation. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation, consulted with counsel and waived his attendant rights, including the right to present his case before a board of officers and to submit statements in his own behalf. The applicant also acknowledged that he understood that if he received an undesirable discharge he would be ineligible for "many or all benefits as a veteran" and that he could "expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life."
The unit commander's recommendation was approved, the applicant was reduced to pay grade E-1, and on 29 January 1973 he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
The applicant's separation physical examination makes no mention of hepatitis, or any other medical conditions, which would have impacted on the applicant's ability to serve honorably.
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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.
There is no indication the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board to have his discharge upgraded.
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 contention that he was young and immature, which led to personal problems and an inability to service is not supported by any evidence submitted by him, or contained in records available to the Board.
2. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request. His contention that his age and maturity level somehow justified or excused his behavior is without foundation. His successful completion of training and promotion to pay grade E-3 clearly indicates that the applicant was capable of honorable service.
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. While the applicant’s contention that he, in effect, became a productive member of society and a good family man has been noted, it does not outweigh the seriousness of his conduct while in the military and does not, in this case, provide an adequate basis upon which the Board would grant relief.
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
__JNS __ __LDS _ __JTM__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002066777 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020321 |
| 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 | CY2003 | 2003090196C070212
The applicant states that after he was discharged, he continued to use alcohol and drugs. A review of the available records fails to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-years statute of limitations. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100029916
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 June 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100029916 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025234
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable 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 | 20100025211
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. The applicant's administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness - frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020436
His military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army in the rank/grade of private (PV1)/E-1 on 5 April 1968, for 3 years. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), then in effect, provided that an honorable discharge was a separation with honor. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provided that a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021116
The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general under honorable conditions discharge. However, his record contains sufficient evidence, including a properly-constituted DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 10 May 1972, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unfitness. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075160C070403
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. There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008240
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). There is no evidence applicant's applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003493
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 30 August 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110003493 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016226
The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be discharged due to unfitness and issued DD Form 258A (Undesirable Discharge Certificate). He had completed 1 year, 10 months, and 17 days of creditable active duty service and had 52 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.