| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr. | Analyst |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Mr. Allen L. Raub | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES; In effect, that he could not adjust to the Army because a sergeant pushed him down some stairs. He states that he is totally disabled by a bad back because of that incident. He was told that the discharge would be automatically upgraded.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted at the age of 20 years and 9 months with an 11th grade education, entered active duty on 10 February 1964 and never completed training.
The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on 23 April 1964 for two periods (4 days and 7 days) of absence without leave (AWOL) and, on 20 July 1964, he was convicted by special court-martial of two specifications of AWOL (9 days and 36 days).
The report of medical history that he provided for his 5 August 1964 medical examination for separation made no mention of the alleged incident in which he was pushed down a stairs by a sergeant and no indication of back trouble. He was found qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111211.
On 17 August 1964 the applicant appeared, with counsel, before a board of officers that was convened to consider whether he should be retained in the service. The board members considered the applicant's records, the testimony of a personnel records technician, that of a stockade guard who testified that the applicant did his work and caused no trouble in the stockade and that of the applicant, himself, who testified that he had no desire to return to duty, that he just did not care for the Army and that he had no particular reason for going AWOL. He indicated that he understood the nature and significance of an undesirable discharge. The board members found that the applicant 's record evidenced that his retention in the service was undesirable and recommended that he be separated for unfitness with an undesirable discharge. The separation authority approved the recommendation and the applicant was discharged on 21 August 1964 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness, as evidenced by frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military or civil authorities.
Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, provided the authority for discharging enlisted personnel for unfitness. Separation action was to be taken when the commander determined that the best interest of the service would be served by eliminating the individual concerned and reasonable attempts to rehabilitate or develop the individual to be a satisfactory soldier were unlikely to
succeed; or rehabilitation was impracticable, such as in cases of confirmed drug addiction or when the medical and/or personal history indicated that the individual was not amenable to rehabilitation measures; or disposition under other regulations was inappropriate. Unfitness included frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military or civil authorities and an established pattern of shirking. The regulation precluded the setting of arbitrary standards, such as a certain number of trials by courts-martial, as a prerequisite to administrative elimination. If examination by a medical officer or psychiatrist indicated the existence of a mental or physical disability that was the cause of unfitness, a board of medical officers was convened. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate; however, in unusual circumstances, a general or honorable discharge was authorized, as directed by the convening authority.
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 or both were in error or unjust. 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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
2. There is no evidence to substantiate the applicant's claim that his misconduct was due to abuse by a sergeant. There is no evidence that he mentioned this incident at either his separation medical examination or at the hearing by the board of officers.
3. There is no substantiating evidence to show that the applicant was informed by anyone in authority that his discharge would be automatically upgraded. There is no provision for the automatic upgrading of any discharge and the applicant testified that he understood the nature and significance of an undesirable discharge.
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
__KAK__ ___MHM_ ___ALR__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002068728 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020618 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-208 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | A03.21 |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011642
This form shows his company commander requested the applicant be evaluated for separation from military service in accordance with (IAW) Army Regulation 635-208 (Personnel Separations-Discharge Unfitness). His commander stated: a. The applicant stated that he "wants out of the Army" because he cannot get along with anyone.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005556
The applicant's record shows he had a problem with alcohol and with his attitude toward military authority. His discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003774
The applicant's record contains a DD Form 493 (Extract of Military Records of Previous Convictions), issued by the Assistant Director of Classification, U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, KS, dated 17 August 1964, which notes the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial: a. On 18 August 1964, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for elimination from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208. On 18...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060853C070421
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 to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016483
On 26 May 1964, the applicant's commander recommended that he be eliminated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness) with an undesirable discharge. The board findings and recommendations were that sufficient cause did exist to discharge the applicant from the U.S. Army and that the applicant did not present sufficient evidence to the board in his own behalf to defer discharge. In addition, the board recommended he be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017233
He then served on active duty in the Regular Army from 1962 to 1965 and received an undesirable discharge. The record contains a signed statement by the applicant, dated 19 January 1965, wherein he acknowledged he had been notified that a recommendation was being submitted for his elimination from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness. Eligibility for the program was restricted to individuals discharged with either an undesirable discharge or a general...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009222
There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. However, there is no evidence that indicates the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. ____________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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090505C070212
That record indicates that the applicant underwent hearing examinations and tests. In a 2 March 1962 statement, the applicant stated that he had been advised that he was being recommended for elimination from the service for unfitness, and that he had been counseled and advised as to the reason for the action and that he could receive an undesirable discharge. Notwithstanding the applicant's contentions, and the statements of support he submits with his request, medical records show that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001690
A DA Form 1049 (Personnel Action), dated 2 May 1961, shows the applicant's commanding officer requested an evaluation of the applicant's mental and physical conditions because he was under consideration for elimination from the service for unfitness. A DA Form 1049, dated 14 July 1961, shows the Commander, Special Processing Detachment, Fort Knox, Kentucky, requested an evaluation of the applicant's mental and physical conditions because he was under consideration for elimination from the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060016337
On 22 September 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge. As a result, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice to this Board expired on 21 September 1980. ____Kenneth L. Wright___ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20060016337 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20070510 TYPE OF DISCHARGE DATE OF DISCHARGE DISCHARGE AUTHORITY DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1.