| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Member | |
| Mr. Charles Gainor | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was apprehended and held for 4 days, that no trial was performed or charges preferred, he simply received an administrative review and a decision was made to discharge him. He goes on to state that he was a young man at the time, under stressful conditions in a new environment. He contends that he was unfairly accused and discriminated against and he had to defend himself against bodily harm. He further states that he has been an honorable and productive citizen who is active in his church and community and he desires to have this unfair, isolated incident properly adjudicated.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri, which destroyed millions of service records. However, reconstructed records contain a copy of his report of separation (DD Form 214), which shows:
He enlisted in Providence, Rhode Island, at 18 years of age on 2 November 1954, for a period of 3 years.
The facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not present in the available records. However, his DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged under honorable conditions at Fort Dix, New Jersey, on 31 January 1955, under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-369, for unsuitability due to a character and behavior disorder. He had served 2 months and 25 days of total active service and had 4 days of lost time due to being absent without leave. He was still in a trainee status at the time of his discharge.
There is no indication in the available records that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 615-369, in effect at the time, provided guidance for the separation of enlisted personnel for unsuitability based on a demonstrated lack of adaptability for military service because of a character and behavior disorder. Personnel could be discharged under this provision if they exhibited inadequate personalities, immature reactions, lack of physical stamina, non-effective or ineffective performance of duty, situational maladjustment, mental deficiency and enuresis. The individual could receive an honorable or general discharge when discharge was recommended.
Army Regulation 635-200, currently in effect, provides that a separation issued to soldiers in an entry level status (trainee) who have less than 180 days of active service will receive an uncharacterized separation.
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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board must presume that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. Accordingly, it appears that the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate even given the limited information contained in the available records.
3. The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board. However, they are not supported by evidence submitted with his application or the available evidence of record. The applicant was still in an entry level status and had 4 days of lost time. While under today’s standards his service would be uncharacterized, at the time of his discharge, his service was not deemed fully honorable, especially given the short amount of time he served.
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
__wtm___ ___inw__ ___cg___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002067680 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/10/03 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1955/01/31 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR615-369 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | UNSUIT |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 547 | 144.4000/A40.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079974C070215
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. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070007406C071029
The applicant’s military records are not available to the Board for review. Discharge, if recommended, would be for unfitness, except that discharge because of unsuitability (under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-369) could be recommended in borderline cases if military circumstances and the character of service rendered by the individual during his current period of service so warranted. In the absence of evidence to the contrary it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608081C070209
On 12 December 1953, the commander notified the FSM that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-369, for unsuitability. 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 character of the discharge is commensurate with the FSM's overall record of military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002083291C070215
APPLICANT STATES : That he had an unblemished service record in Korea. Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, provided the authority for discharging enlisted personnel for unfitness. Based upon the nature of the applicant’s discharge and the characterization of service he received, it must be presumed that the applicant’s father’s failing health and eventual death was taken into consideration by the separation authority.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061045C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : The applicant submitted three applications. The Board noted the applicant’s request to show his narrative reason for separation on his General Discharge Certificate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03090643C070212
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 the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should commence on the date of final action by the ADRB. The applicant’s military records are not available to the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019683
The FSM's complete military records are not available to the Board for review. On 12 February 2013, the ABCMR considered his petition for a discharge upgrade but found no evidence of error or injustice and denied his request. The regulation stated that discharge, if recommended, would be for unfitness, except that discharge because of unsuitability (under Army Regulation 615-369 (Enlisted Personnel - Discharge - Inaptitude or Unsuitability)), without referral to another board, might be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004034
On 25 January 1955, the applicant's commander referred him to an administrative separation board based on the medical personnel recommendations. There is no evidence showing he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. voiding the general discharge now held by the applicant; b. showing he was discharged from the service with an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060437C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Item 29 on the applicant's DD Form 214 show that on 9 July 1953, he was wounded as a result of action with enemy forces while assigned to Korea. He was evacuated to the 25 th Station
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110002928
He goes on to state that a board was convened but he was not present for the board and a corporal who attended the board told him that the board recommended that he receive an honorable discharge. However, his WD AGO Form 53-58 which was authenticated by the applicant shows that on 17 October 1947 he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-369 with a general discharge, and he was still in basic training. There is no evidence in the available records to show that the...