| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr. | Member | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he would like his UD upgraded in order to be eligible for veterans benefits and because it would be appropriate based on his service to his country.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 1 October 1969, he entered active duty in the Regular Army for 3 years. He completed training in, was awarded, and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11D (Armor Reconnaissance Specialist).
The applicant’s record shows that the highest rank he held on active duty was private first class/E-3. It also shows that during his active duty tenure, he earned the National Defense Service Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (Korea), and Expert Marksmanship Badge (Rifle). No other acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition are documented in his record.
The applicant’s record does document an extensive disciplinary history, which includes his conviction by summary courts-martial on the following three separate occasions for the offenses indicated: 15 July 1971, for breaking restriction;
16 September 1971, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 31 August to
7 September 1971; and 15 November 1971, for being AWOL from 16 October to 27 October 1971 and for breaking restriction.
A separation packet on the applicant, containing the specific facts and circumstances pertaining to his discharge processing is not on file in his military records. However, there is a properly constituted separation document
(DD Form 214) on file, which contains the authority and characterization of the applicant’s discharge.
The DD Form 214 confirms that the applicant was administratively discharged on 19 January 1972, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. It also verifies that he received an UD after completing a total of 1 year,
11 months, and 28 days of creditable active military service and accruing a total of 111 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.
The Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed the applicant’s case and after determining that his discharge was proper and equitable, it denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge. The applicant’s case was also reviewed under the provisions of the Department of Defense Review Program (Special) and an upgrade to his discharge was also denied.
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel who are found unfit or unsuitable for further military service. 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.
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. As requested by the applicant, the Board considered his contention that his discharge should be upgraded in order to allow him to receive veterans benefits based on the time he served his country. However, the Board finds that this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
2. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the Army. However, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214, which contains the authority and reason for his separation and that was authenticated by the applicant with his signature on the date of his separation. Therefore, the Board presumes government regularity in the discharge process.
3. Lacking independent evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that the applicant’s discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations in effect at the time. Further, the Board concludes that the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service and that it is appropriate based on his extensive disciplinary history. Therefore, the Board concludes that the requested relief is not warranted.
4. 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.
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
__MKP__ __EJA__ __RTD___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002066942 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/04/11 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19720119 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-212 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Discreditable incidents involving civil and military authorities |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.6400 |
| 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 | CY2006 | 20060005144C070205
On 20 September 1972, the applicant's commander recommended he be required to appear before a board of officers to determine whether he should be discharged for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) within that Board's 15-year statute of limitations. Richard T. Dunbar ______________________ CHAIRPERSON INDEX |CASE ID |AR20060005144 | |SUFFIX | | |RECON | | |DATE BOARDED |20061207...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000738C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. The applicant's contention that his discharge and RE code should be upgraded, and that his SPN code should be changed based on his overall record of service, and his excellent post service conduct, and the supporting evidence he submitted were carefully...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070013696
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. There is no evidence in the applicant's records, and he has provided none, to show that he attempted suicide while serving on active duty. The evidence provided by the applicant regarding his appeal was considered; however, it does not support an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge, under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003936C070206
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 December 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050003936 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. Scott W. Faught | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. He continued to go AWOL from basic training due to his inability to adapt to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060943C070421
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: The applicant was confined from 5 August to 31 October 1969.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075469C070403
The Board considered the following evidence: On 31 July 1972, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness with a UD. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002075469SUFFIXRECONYYYYMMDDDATE BOARDED2002/09/10TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UD)DATE OF DISCHARGE1972/07/31DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-212 .
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085334C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that his alcohol problems started prior to his entering the Army and continued during his active duty tenure. On 21 November 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board determined that the applicant’s UD was proper and equitable and it denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062563C070421
On 25 August 1970, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation by the Chief, Neuropsychiatry, Irwin Army Hospital, Fort Riley. Evidence of record indicates the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) in 2001. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001062563SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20020423 TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UD)DATE OF DISCHARGE19700930DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-212DISCHARGE REASONA51.00BOARD DECISION(DENY)REVIEW...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060007494C070205
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 18 January 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060007494 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. 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. Since the applicant’s record of service...