| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deyon D. Battle | Analyst |
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member | |
| Mr. Harry B. Oberg | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was incarcerated at the time that he was discharged from the Army; therefore, he was unable to obtain the legal assistance that he needed.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 23 October 1973, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1. He successfully completed his training as a wheel vehicle repairman.
Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 10 April 1974, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 1 April to 8 April 1974. His punishment consisted of an oral reprimand, restriction and extra duty.
On 29 May 1974, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of being AWOL from 16 April until 13 May 1974. He was sentenced to a reduction in pay grade, a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.
On 26 June 1974, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of failure to go to his appointed place of duty on 6 June, 7 June, 8 June and 9 June 1974. He was sentenced to hard labor without confinement for 30 days and a forfeiture of pay.
On 15 October 1974, NJP was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 3 September until 30 September 1974. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.
The applicant went AWOL again on 11 November 1974 and he remained absent until he was apprehended by civil authorities on 17 December 1974 and was charged with two counts of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 10 years on the first count and 5 years on the second count of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. He was confined at the Texas Department of Corrections in Huntsville, Texas.
A board of officers convened on 3 February 1977 to determine whether the applicant should be discharged as a result of his conviction by civil authorities. The applicant was represented by counsel during the board proceedings and counsel introduced into evidence a statement that was written by the applicant. The board of officers recommended that he be discharged from the Army under other than honorable conditions.
The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 11 February 1977. Accordingly, on 18 February 1977 the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for misconduct as a result of a conviction by civil authorities. He had completed 10 months and 3 days of total active service and he had over 2 years of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-206, then in effect, outlined the conditions and procedures for the discharge of enlisted personnel for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.
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 type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
3. The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions. However, they are unsupported by the evidence of record. The record clearly shows that, although he was incarcerated when the board of officers convened, he was represented by counsel during the board proceedings, who submitted a statement in his behalf to be introduced into evidence.
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
___jm___ __tsk____ __hbo___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002069073 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/07/11 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1977/02/18 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-206 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | 626 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 627 | 144.6100 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077123C070215
On 6 June 1977, a board of officers convened at Fort Bliss, Texas, to consider the applicant’s case. On 21 June 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge after determining that his discharge had been proper and equitable. The record also shows that the applicant’s case was considered by a board of officers at his request, he was represented by counsel, and the board after carefully considering the facts, recommended that he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110002283
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The separation authority could issue an honorable discharge (HD) or a GD if it were warranted based on the member's record of service. His record also includes letters from the applicant requesting discharge as a result of his civil conviction and a Congressional Inquiry Packet that confirms he sought the assistance of a Member of Congress in expediting his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140005061
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 October 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140005061 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. After reviewing the facts of his case the board found that he should be discharged for misconduct and recommended that he be issued an undesirable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084226C070212
On 12 April 1976, the applicant's commander submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to conviction by civil authorities. Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, for misconduct – conviction by civil authorities. There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024917
On 1 July 1975, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation that the applicant be discharged from the service because of conviction by a civil court under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 and directed that the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Based on the foregoing, there is an insufficient basis to upgrade the applicant's discharge to an honorable discharge or to a general discharge under honorable conditions. _______ _ _x______...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051378C070420
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 | 20090009227
The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable or general discharge. The applicant essentially states that he was arrested and convicted of first degree armed robbery in 1977 in the State of Washington, but since that time he has no criminal history. However, the applicant was not awarded a personal decoration which might have warranted a general discharge, and his record of misconduct so far outweighs his record of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050014826C070206
On 17 June 1975, the applicant’s unit commander submitted a recommendation for the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of paragraph 33a of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations), by reason of civil conviction. The applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 21 December 1976 under the provision of section VI of Army Regulation 635-206, by reason of civil conviction. There is no evidence that the applicant applied for the Army Discharge Review Board for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016423
BOARD DATE: 13 March 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110016423 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 2 July 1973, his immediate commander submitted a request for authority to discharge the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 based on his conviction by civil authorities of armed robbery, sentence to 12 years of incarceration, and confinement in a state correctional facility. The evidence of record shows the applicant was convicted by a civil court for armed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069732C070402
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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. On 7 January 1971, the applicant again left his unit in an AWOL status until 11 April 1971. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain...