| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Stanley Kelley | Member | |
| Mr. John P. Infante | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to show he was honorably discharged.
APPLICANT STATES: That on 28 February 1974, he received an Undesirable Discharge Certificate that was upgraded to General under honorable conditions on 6 July 1979. He indicates he was an excellent soldier and that he gave 110 percent to the Army, until the unit first sergeant told him to go home and await a medical discharge. He was apprehended as being absent without leave (AWOL) and discharged as being undesirable. He gives a brief description of his active duty assignments. He concludes by indicating his discharge should have been medical, and that “all this has led to PTSD (Post-traumatic Stress Disorder) treatment and 27 years of feeling that I have let my country down.” He contends that the Department of Veterans Affairs has determined him to be 40 percent disabled based on a parachute accident in 1972; however, he has not provided evidence in support of his claim.
He provided a partial copy of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record); a copy of his revised DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty), dated 28 February 1974; 2 pages from his prior request for upgrade of his discharge; a letter from the Deputy Chief of Staff for Training, Training and Doctrine Command thanking him for his suggestions for Prisoner of War training; and a poem entitled “Patriotism.”
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's available military records show:
On 26 March 1969, the applicant enlisted in the Army. On 9 July 1969, he was honorably discharged for not meeting medical fitness standards at the time of enlistment. His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty), dated 9 July 1969 indicates he had 3 months and 14 days of creditable service.
On 30 September 1971, he enlisted in the Army. He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 64C (Motor Transport Operator).
Although copies of his non-judicial punishments (NJP) are not in the available records, the record does show he was formally counseled on 7 occasions and that he received NJP on at least 7 occasions for AWOL, dereliction in the performance of his duty, and falsifying official military records.
On 6 June 1973, his commander recommended he be barred from reenlistment based on his NJP’s and his letters of indebtedness. He also indicated that the applicant demonstrated a total disregard for his military and moral responsibilities. He had a record of misconduct and indebtedness that was indicative of his apathetic attitude in relation to his performance of duties and
personal affairs. His attitude has regressed even though he had numerous chances to rehabilitate himself. The applicant elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.
On 3 July 1973, the appropriate approval authority approved the bar to reenlistment.
The applicant was recommended for separation for shirking, and failure to pay just debts. He received a rehabilitative transfer. The commander rated him unsatisfactory for the period 1 October 1972 to January 1974. The applicant waived all rights. There is no evidence in the records that he received a mental evaluation.
On 28 February 1974, he was discharged under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-5a(4) with a discharge under other than honorable conditions. His DD Form 214 shows completion of 2 years, 4 months and 11 days of creditable service and 122 days of lost time. He received an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
There is no evidence in the available records and the applicant has provided none, showing that the unit first sergeant advised him to go home and that a medical discharge would be mailed to him.
On 29 October 1975, he was denied disability compensation by the Veterans Administration and was advised that he could only qualify if the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) changed his discharge to under honorable conditions.
On 13 June 1979, in adjudicating his request for upgrade of his discharge to honorable, the ADRB determined that his discharge was not proper or equitable and gave partial relief by upgrading his discharge to General under honorable conditions and assigning special processing designator “JKJ” (Misconduct – an established pattern for shirking).
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.
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. He has not shown otherwise, or that he should have been medically discharged. He has not provided evidence in support of his contentions.
2. There is no evidence to support the applicant’s contention that the unit first sergeant advised him to go home and that a medical discharge would be mailed to him.
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 the preceding requirement.
4. 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
_SK_____ _RVO___ _JPI____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002068893 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020718 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | 144 |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003727
He states the new platoon sergeant seemed to not care for him and a few of the other privates under his command. 10 On 6 July 1974, the applicant's commander recommended the applicant be discharged from the service as unfit by reason of a pattern of shirking. Army Regulation 635-200 provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012720
There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Although the applicant contends that there was a breach of contract and that he was told he would be able to obtain his funeral directors license, evidence of record shows he was sent to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067566C070402
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. In this letter, the applicant was informed that he could submit a request for an upgrade of his discharge to the Army Discharge Review Board in accordance with Army Regulation 15-180. However, records show the applicant signed a letter during his last duty assignment at Fort Hood, Texas, acknowledging that he could submit a request for an upgrade of his discharge to the Army Discharge Review Board.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059747C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 23 July 1974, a summary of the applicant’s behavior during confinement was provided to the separation authority.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086541C070212
In a statement dated 25 February 1974, the applicant's first sergeant stated that he had been told by the applicant that he was having problems at home. When separation for unfitness was warranted, a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate. Based on the applicant's record of indiscipline, the Board determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002565
The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service and issued of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100000911
On 1 June 1972, a mental status evaluation found the applicant's behavior normal. On 30 June 1972, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 with an undesirable discharge for unfitness by shirking. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051266C070420
The convening authority denied his request. The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded. Notwithstanding this fact, the Board finds that the receipt of an award is not always in itself a sufficient basis to upgrade a discharge involving misconduct or failure to pay just debts.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511150C070209
The examining psychiatrist stated that the applicant could not be an effective soldier and recommended that he be administratively separated. On 10 January 1969 the separation authority approved the request for discharge and directed that the applicant receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicants overall record of military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120013158
There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and the character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service. ___________X____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army...