| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Ms. Jennifer L. Prater | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the undesirable discharge (UD) of her deceased spouse, a former service member (FSM), be changed to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the FSM served his country and voluntarily returned to the Army on his own. She states that it is her desire to receive an upgrade to the FSM’s UD for his family and in order to receive a footstone for his grave. In support of her application, she submits a certificate of death, an UD certificate, and an Application for the Review Of Discharge Or Dismissal From the Armed Forces Of The United States (DD Form 293), dated 14 February 1986, signed by the FSM.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The FSM’s military records were not available to the Board for review. A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members’ records at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973. It is believed that the applicant’s records were lost in that fire.
The available evidence includes a properly constituted separation document
(DD Form 214) that contains the authority and reason for discharge. This document was issued to and authenticated by the FSM with his signature on the date of his separation, 28 December 1955.
The DD Form 214 confirms that the applicant served on active duty from
24 November 1950 through 28 December 1955. It also shows that on the date of his separation, he held the rank of private/E-1 (PV1), and that during his active duty tenure he earned the National Defense Service Medal and Combat Infantryman Badge.
The specific facts and circumstances surrounding the FSM’s administrative separation from the Army were not available to the Board. However, the separation document confirms that he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368, by reason of unfit habits and traits of character that rendered retention in service undesirable, and that he received an UD. It also shows that on the date of his discharge, he had completed a total of 1 year,
9 months and 6 days of creditable active military service, and had accrued
1222 days of time lost.
There is no evidence that the Army Discharge Review Board received the FSM’s request for an upgrade to his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 615-368, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness. It stated, in pertinent part, that soldiers could be separated for habits or traits of character that included incidents of misconduct or a recommendation by medical authorities indicating that the member possessed an antisocial personality. An UD 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 Board notes the applicant’s contention that upgrading the FSM’s discharge would mean a lot to the family. However, it finds this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.
2. The FSM’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the Army. However, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 that was authenticated by the FSM on the date of his separation and that contains the authority and reason for his separation. Therefore, the Board presumes government regularity in the discharge process.
3. The evidence of records shows the FSM had accrued 1222 days of lost time due to AWOL and notwithstanding the applicant’s argument that the FSM voluntary returned to military control, the Board concludes this discreditable entry of misconduct was of such a magnitude that it prohibits an upgrade of the FSM’s discharge. While the Board fully understands the basis for the applicant’s request, the Board is compelled to take this action in the interest of all those who face similar circumstances and who have been denied discharge upgrades.
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
JLP AAO RKS DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002069463 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | YYYYMMDD |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19551228 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR615-368 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Unfitness Habits & traits |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.5000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140005503
He returned to the Continental United States in March 1954. d. In September 1954, he was convicted by an SPCM for being AWOL from 12 June to 4 September 1954. e. In February 1955, he was convicted by an SPCM for being AWOL from 24 January to 16 February 1955. f. In March 1955, while in confinement, the FSMs commanding officer requested the FSM be required to appear before a board of officers convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Undesirable Habits or Traits of Character...
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 | CY2006 | 20060004035C070205
All of the FSM’s military records are not available to the Board for review. The board determined that the circumstances of his case gave evidence of unfitness within the meaning of Army Regulation 615-368 and recommended that he receive an undesirable discharge for undesirable traits of character. However, the evidence of record shows that the board of officers considered the FSM’s overall good record of service up until the point of his misconduct, when it determined that his act of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008088
The applicant, the widow of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. There is no evidence the FSM applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009184
The applicant requests the characterization of service of her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM), be upgraded from an undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. On 14 November 1954, his immediate commander requested a board of officers be convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Men - Discharge - Unfitness (Undesirable Habits or Traits of Character)) for the purpose of determining the applicant's fitness for retention. On an unknown date in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010738
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded. The applicant had already exceeded the 15-year statute of limitations to petition the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge when he submitted his DD Form 293 to that board on 12 June 2006. Individuals discharged under this regulation would normally be issued an UD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | AR20050016538C070206
The applicant’s military records are not available to the Board for review. Meanwhile, the commander submitted a request to have the applicant appear before a board of officers to determine if he should be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 for unfitness due to undesirable habits or traits of character. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017703
The military medical officer stated the applicant was undesirable as a Soldier. On 18 January 1956, the applicant's immediate commander requested a board of officers be convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Men - Discharge - Unfitness (Undesirable Habits or Traits of Character)) for the purpose of determining the applicant's fitness for retention. The board found him unfit for retention and recommended his discharge with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013335
While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicants failure to timely file. On 21 March 1955, the applicant's immediate commander requested a board of officers be convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Men - Discharge -...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059335C070421
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. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: