| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Gale J. Thomas | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Member | |
| Ms. Lana E. McGlynn | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was 18 years of age when he returned from Vietnam, and was not in his right state of mind. The applicant submits no evidence in support of his request.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 December 1968 for a period of 2 years. The applicant was born on 3 December 1950, and at the time of his enlistment he was 18 years of age.
On 31 December 1968, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of two specifications of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 1 October 1969 to
7 November 1969, and from 18 November 1969 to 1 December 1969. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for three months and a forfeiture.
On 22 April 1970, a medical examination cleared the applicant for separation.
On 24 April 1970, he was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 4 January 1970 to 4 April 1970. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for six months and a forfeiture.
On 4 May 1970, the applicant’s unit commander notified him of his intent to separate him from military service under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-212. The basis for this action was the applicant’s two special courts-martial, his approximate 168 days of bad time due to AWOL and confinement, his lack of self-motivation and his negative attitude towards the military.
On 4 May 1970, a psychiatric evaluation determined that the applicant had no mental or physical disease or defect sufficient to warrant discharge through medical channels, and recommended he be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.
On 6 May 1970, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant waived consideration and appearance before a board of officers, legal representation and declined to submit statements on his own behalf. He acknowledged that he understood his commander’s intent to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, and the possible ramifications of receiving a less than honorable discharge.
On 11 May 1970, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, and directed the issuance of an undesirable discharge.
On 13 May 1970, the applicant was discharged under the above cited regulation, under conditions other than honorable. His DD Form 214 indicates he had
1 year of creditable service, and 173 days of lost time.
On 22 May 1985, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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. 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. The applicant’s contention that he was young at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.
3. 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 that requirement.
4. The actions by the Army in this case were proper, and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.
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
__FNE_ _ __TSK_ _ __LEM __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002068655 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020813 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066705C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 29 April 1970, the unit commander recommended discharge for unfitness with issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. On 15 June 1970, the separation authority approved the discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness and directed that the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011536C070208
Leonard Hassell | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. There is no evidence which indicates the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. However, the evidence of record shows he was convicted by a Special Court-Martial for being AWOL during these periods and was sentenced to confinement in the Post Stockade at Fort...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070003821
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 23 August 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070003821 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 1 December 1970, he was discharged with an undesirable discharge and a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions after completing 3 years, 10 months, and 24 days of creditable active...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058663C070421
On 21 August 1970, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness and directed that the applicant be furnished a general discharge. On 25 February 1974 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade to honorable. The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included four nonjudicial punishments, four special court-martial convictions and 640 days lost due...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017268
On 5 March 1970, the applicant's immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability) by reason of unfitness. Consistent with the chain of command's recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unfitness and directed he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate and be reduced...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086693C070212
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge, as upgraded to general by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), be affirmed by the Board. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that his undesirable discharge was upgraded to a general discharge under the Department of Defense Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP); however, when he applied for benefits, he was informed that his discharge is still considered as under other than honorable conditions. Public Law 95-126 precluded automatic...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004099901C070208
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests that his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge, and by awarding him several months of back pay in the grade of E- 3. On 2 December 1985, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083527C070212
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. APPLICANT STATES : That his overall combat service was not given consideration at the time of his discharge. There is no evidence in the available records to show 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 | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086066C070212
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 discharge should be upgraded because he was accepted under lowered enlistment standards and he was diagnosed with an immature personality, passive aggressive type – chronic. After hearing testimony and reviewing the evidence of record, the ADRB again determined that the applicant was properly discharged and that there was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080000719
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 April 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080000719 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. The applicant states, in effect, that he went absent without leave (AWOL) due to family problems. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within...