| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. G. E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge, under other than honorable conditions, be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his problems arose from not being paid after about his third month of service. He states that this led his command to punish him for not maintaining military standards even though he had no funds to do so. He also states that he was told that after 6 months his discharge would automatically be upgraded but it wasn't. This failure to grant him an upgrade in turn has led him to be unable to get decent post-service employment, which has left him unable to provide for himself.
The applicant submits a newspaper article about the patriotic paint job on his truck which was done to show his pride in America and patriotic support following the September 11th attacks. It states that in the 1960's he was in the music business and played "with Waylon (Jennings), with Willie (Nelson), with anybody in Nashville who was anybody." When the music "gigs" started to dry up, he worked as a millwright but had to quit due to problems with an old leg injury from a car accident.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant entered active duty on 20 November 1958. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training with award of the military occupational specialty (MOS) 620.00 (Engineering Equipment Maintenanceman).
On 14 January 1959, a special court-martial found the applicant guilty of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 16 December 1958 through 3 January 1959. The sentence included confinement for one month and forfeiture of $50 per month for one month, with the confinement being suspended.
A second special court-martial, on 24 April 1959, found him guilty of being AWOL from 16 March 1959 through 27 March 1959. The sentence included confinement for three months and forfeiture of $25 per month for six months, three months of the forfeiture was suspended.
On 16 January 1960, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for being absent from his appointed place of duty.
Following the NJP action, the applicant's unit commander initiated discharge proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness. The applicant acknowledged receipt and waived his right to counsel, to request a hearing before a board of officers, and to submit a statement on his own behalf.
In concert with his discharge processing, the applicant was afforded physical examination and mental status evaluation (MSE). The MSE, conducted 22 January 1960, described the applicant as having an antisocial personality manifested by life long difficulties with authority, impulsive behavior, and inability to benefit from experience. He was found to be able to tell right from wrong and to adhere to the right. He met the medical retention standards of Army Regulation 40-501 and was qualified for separation.
The discharge authority approved the recommendation for discharge, directed that the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade, and discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
The applicant was discharged on 29 February 1960 with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He was shown to have had 1 year, 2 months, and 10 days of creditable service with 30 days lost due to AWOL.
The record shows that the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed a 1961 request for an upgrade and denied the applicant any relief. A 1963 request to the President for an upgrade was reviewed by the ADRB. Again no relief was deemed to be warranted.
Army Regulation 635-208, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness. Unfitness included repeated petty offenses/frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military or civilian authorities. Action to separate an individual was to be taken when, in the judgment of the commander, rehabilitation was impractical or was unlikely to produce a satisfactory soldier. When separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.
Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 (Standards for Discharge Review) specifically states that no factors should be established that require automatic change or denial of a change to any discharge.
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 Army does not, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. When an applicant submits a request to change a discharge, each case is decided on its own merits. Change may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge was in error and/or unjust.
2. The applicant has provided no evidence nor does the record support that he was improperly paid.
3. There is no evidence that the applicant was punished for any action except for being absent from his place of duty and his two periods of AWOL. These offences are not shown to be related to any type of monetary problems.
4. The Board notes the applicant's patriotic gesture, however, it finds this effort is of such a short duration and not so meritorious as to outweigh the offenses that led to his discharge.
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.
| CASE ID | AR2002067463 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020730 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | Deny |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050015643C070206
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 August 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050015643 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. On 4 January 1960, the applicant acknowledged that he had been advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness. The separation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016316
At the time he had completed 1 year, 3 months, and 7 days of net active service this period; 6 months of other service; and 3 months and 18 days of foreign service. The evidence of record shows the applicant was diagnosed with and treated for whooping cough (pertussis). The evidence of record also shows that Army officials advised the applicant to report to a military medical facility for treatment.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065843C070421
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. A board of officers was convened at Wackerheim, West Germany on 27 November 1959, to determine if the applicant should be separated from the service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003499
There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) within its 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. However, his service record shows he received four Article 15s and two summary courts-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013995
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The FSMs DD Form 214 shows he was discharged from the U.S. Army with an undesirable discharge with service characterized as under other than honorable conditions, in accordance with the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, Separation Program Number (SPN) 28B. The evidence of record also shows that the FSM was in confinement from 24 March 1960 to 12 June 1960.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040008290C070208
Section 6 (Time Lost under Sec 6(a) APP 2b MCM 51 and Subsequent to Normal Date ETS) of the applicant's DA Form 24 contain entries that show he was AWOL from 13 August 1959 through 4 September 1959 (23 days), was in confinement for the period 10 September 1959 through 6 October 1959 (27 days), and AWOL on 2 February 1960 (1 day). There is no evidence in the available records which show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015975
He also indicated he understood that if an undesirable discharge was issued to him that such a discharge would be under conditions other than honorable and that as a result of such a discharge he could be deprived of many or all rights as a veteran under both Federal and state laws and that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in situations where the type of service rendered in any branch of the Armed Forces or the type of discharge received therefrom could have...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8309508
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. In support of his application he submits about a dozen letters of support and training indicating his work with the American Indian Chemical Dependency Programs in Minnesota. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017363
He states his first sergeant (1SG) ordered him to get a haircut and he did. On 12 May 1959, the applicant's company commander requested that the applicant undergo a psychiatric examination due to pending board action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 (Separation of Enlisted Personnel). There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085224C070212
On the same date, the applicant's squad leader indicated in a written statement that the applicant had goofed off on most details for the past 6 months. During his prior period of enlistment, he completed 4 years, 3 months and 12 days of active military service. On 12 October 1964, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted...