| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Vic Whitney | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Harry B.Oberg | Member | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable type discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was young and foolish at the time and did not understand the consequences of the discharge he received. He is now disabled and believes that enough time has passed to upgrade his discharge.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He entered active duty at 20 years of age on 25 September 1961. He completed field artillery training and was assigned to Fort Meade, Maryland. On 16 August 1962, he was convicted by a special court-martial of two specifications of absence without leave (AWOL) for a total of 54 days. The approved sentence included confinement at hard labor for 4 months and a forfeiture of pay.
On 18 February 1963 he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for absence from his place of duty. On 22 March 1963 the applicant was AWOL again. He was apprehended by civilian authorities on 25 March 1963 and charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He was returned to military control on 26 March 1963. On 22 April 1963, he was convicted by a special court-martial of wrongful appropriation of an automobile of a fellow soldier and 4 days AWOL. The approved sentence included confinement at hard labor for 6 months, a forfeiture of pay, and reduction to pay grade E-1.
A 17 May 1963 mental hygiene consultation resulted in a diagnosis of passive-aggressive reaction, manifested by immaturity, poorly controlled hostility, and manipulative behavior. The condition was considered to be a character and behavior disorder not a medical condition amenable to hospitalization or treatment.
On 28 May 1963, the applicant waived his rights to a hearing before a board of officers and to submit statements in his own behalf concerning the commander's intent to recommend he be separated for unfitness. He also declined to meet with counsel. The applicant also acknowledged that he might receive an undesirable discharge and may be deprived of many or all rights as a veteran under Federal and state laws.
On 29 May 1963, the commander forwarded the recommendation that the applicant be separated for unfitness based on his marginal performance and unsatisfactory conduct. The separation authority, a major general, approved the request and directed issuance of an undesirable discharge. Effective 17 July 1963, the applicant was separated under authority of Army Regulation 635-208. He had 1 year, 3 months, and 1 day creditable service and 204 days lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, provided the authority for discharging enlisted personnel for unfitness. Separation action was to be taken when the commander determined that the best interest of the service would be served by eliminating the individual concerned and reasonable attempts to rehabilitate or develop the individual to be a satisfactory soldier were unlikely to succeed. Unfitness included frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military or civil authorities and an established pattern of shirking. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.
There is no evidence of record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade within the 15-year statute of limitations.
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 Federal benefits. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.
2. The applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief. The Board notes that the applicant was almost 21 years of age at the time of his first AWOL. While the Board is empathetic, the applicant's personal problems are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
3. 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.
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
___fe___ __rd___ __ra___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002066831 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020611 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | deny |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006283
On 11 December 1962, the applicant's immediate commander recommended that the applicant be eliminated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 (Personnel Separations) by reason of unfitness and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. After carefully considering all the evidence in his case, the board unanimously found that the applicant was unfit for further military service and recommended that he be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001401C070205
On 13 May 1964, the applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation to discharge the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to...
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 | CY2002 | 2002073058C070403
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004240C070205
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. Although the applicant contends that he was granted a hardship discharge, there is no evidence of record which shows he requested a hardship discharge prior to his separation. Since the applicant’s brief record of service included one nonjudicial punishment, one summary court-martial conviction, one special court-martial conviction, and 93 days of lost time,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088369C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He states that he was instructed to sign the blank form and that it was not until two years ago that he ordered a copy of his military records and discovered that the ORD Form 493 contained his initials. The psychiatrist recommended that he be separated from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709619
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. Accordingly, on 21 August...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070000041
The separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that he be issued an undesirable discharge. On 19 March 1965, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicants request for an honorable discharge. Since the applicants record of service included one nonjudicial punishment, four summary court-martial convictions, and 71 days of lost time, his record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056270C070420
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: There is no evidence in the available records to show 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 | CY1997 | 9709619C070209
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The Board considered the...