| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | ||
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: That he never received an Article 15 or any other disciplinary actions. He made a mistake in the civilian community which resulted in lost time but he was never in trouble in the Army. He provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 March 1973. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11C (Infantry Indirect Fire Crewman).
The applicant has two Enlisted Efficiency Reports (EERs) on file that considerably overlapped. One, for the period September 1973 – August 1974 wherein his platoon sergeant was the rater and his platoon leader was the reviewer. He was rated as below average in five characteristics (adaptability, attitude, initiative, leadership, and responsibility) and unsatisfactory in the sixth (duty performance). Comments indicated he did not care about his personal appearance or his duty performance and when work was required on his vehicle he was absent for one reason or another.
The second EER is for the period September 1973 – July 1974 wherein the applicant’s platoon leader was the rater and his company commander was the reviewer. This EER rated him as average in the same five characteristics and as above average in the sixth. Comments indicated he did a good job when told to do something but he needed to take more initiative in his duties. (Both EERs indicated they were prepared by the correct rater and that the reviewer concurred with the rater.)
A Federal Bureau of Investigation record dated 4 March 1975 shows the applicant was arrested on 11 October 1974 for three counts of second degree burglary and three counts of grand larceny.
On 11 February 1975, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.
The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record, DA Form 20, shows he was in civil confinement from 31 March – 7 May 1975.
The applicant had a third EER for the period December 1973 – May 1975. This EER rated him as unsatisfactory in all six characteristics and commented that he performed his duties in an unsatisfactory manner.
The discharge packet is not available. A Veterans Administration Request for Information, VA Form 07-3101, dated 26 February 1976, indicates that his discharge packet was sent to the Veterans Administration.
On 12 June 1975, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for civil conviction with an undesirable, under other than honorable conditions discharge. He had completed 2 years, 1 month, and 12 days of creditable active service and had 38 days of lost time.
Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for misconduct (fraudulent entry, conviction by civil court, and absence without leave or desertion). That regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the elimination of enlisted personnel for misconduct when they were initially convicted by civil authorities, or action taken against them which is tantamount to a finding of guilty, of an offense for which the maximum penalty under the Uniform Code of Military Justice is death or confinement in excess of 1 year.
Army Regulation 635-200, at the time, provided the criteria governing the issuance of an honorable, general, or undesirable discharge. In pertinent part, it stated (as the current version also states) that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. It is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. The current version also states that the quality of service of a soldier on active duty is affected adversely by conduct that is of a nature to bring discredit on the Army, regardless of whether the conduct is subject to Uniform Code of Military Justice jurisdiction. Characterization may be based on conduct in the civilian community. The burden is on the soldier to demonstrate that such conduct did not adversely affect his or her service. There are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for characterization.
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 this requirement and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.
2. The applicant’s three EERs indicate that his overall military conduct and performance of duty was not satisfactory. He was arrested for burglary and grand larceny; presumably these are the charges for which he received a civilian conviction. The Board concludes that these charges adequately met the criteria of “conduct that is of a nature to bring discredit on the Army” and therefore the type of discharge given was and still is appropriate.
3. 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
__CLA__ __BJE__ __DPH___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002066853 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/06/13 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1975/06/12 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-206 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A61.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053812C070420
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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. Under this proclamation, eligible deserters were given the opportunity to request discharge, for the good of the service, with the understanding that they...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006253
The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 7 May 1975, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge and a characterization of service of under conditions other than honorable under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 after completing 3 years and 2 days of active service with 521 days of lost time under Title 10, U.S. Code, section 972. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | AR20050014849C070206
He also states that he told his commander that all he wanted was to get treatment and carry on with his duties but his commander did not want to hear that. He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 21 July 1977 for an upgrade of his discharge and contended at that time that it was unjust for the Army to discharge him for a civilian offense, because he was serving time for that offense at that time. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015622
The board found the applicant was undesirable for further retention in the military service because of his conviction by civil court and recommended his discharge from the service with an undesirable discharge. The convening/separation authority approved the board of officers' findings and recommendations and ordered the applicant discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for willful misconduct by reason of civil conviction and directed he be furnished an Undesirable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006720
On 18 January 1971, the applicant's commander initiated action to discharge the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 due to conviction by civil authorities. Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 16 July 1971, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to conviction by civil authorities. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026787
The applicant was accordingly discharged on 29 May 1974. The applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, by reason of a civil conviction. _______ _ _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 | CY2003 | 2003084226C070212
On 12 April 1976, the applicant's commander submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to conviction by civil authorities. Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, for misconduct – conviction by civil authorities. There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040009110C070208
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 August 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20040009110 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. James B. Gunlicks | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that, on 2 October 1974, he was discharged with...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010716
The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. He was convicted by civil authorities on 22 April 1975 and sentenced to incarceration in the State Penitentiary for 3 years. On 14 July 1975 the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations Discharge Misconduct) due to his conviction by civil authorities.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025369
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 7 October 1975 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 due to conviction by civil authorities with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The applicant's overall record of service has been considered.