| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Stanley Kelley | Member | ||
| Mr. John P. Infante | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was immature at the time he enlisted and was discharged. He could not adapt to being away from home. He has since lived his life as a good citizen and has had no arrests or trouble with the law. He provides his Report of Transfer or Discharge, DD Form 214, as supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was born on 23 March 1943. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 June 1960. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 131.00 (Armor Crewman).
The applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial on 16 December 1960 of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 5:00 p. m. 3 October 1960 to 9:00 a. m. 4 October 1960 and from 11 October to 21 November 1960. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 15 days and to forfeit $52.00 pay.
The applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial on 13 January 1961 of being AWOL from 5 January to on or about 6 January 1961. He was sentenced to forfeit $50.00 pay.
The applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial on 23 March 1961 of stealing property (a pair of combat boots) from another service member, of a value of less than $20.00. He was sentenced to hard labor without confinement for 1 month, to be reduced to recruit, E-1, and to forfeit $40.00 pay.
The applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial on 7 April 1961 of being AWOL from 1 April to on or about 4 April 1961.
On 12 April 1961, the applicant received a psychiatric evaluation. He was found to be mentally responsible, to be able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.
On 13 April 1961, the applicant’s commander recommended he be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness.
On 14 April 1961, the applicant as advised of the basis for the recommended separation action. He accepted military counsel, he requested that his case be heard by a board of officers, and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 18 April 1961, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.
On 27 April 1961, the applicant waived counsel and waived his right to have his case heard by a board of officers.
On 1 May 1961, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
On 9 May 1961, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness, with an undesirable, under other than honorable conditions, discharge. He had completed 7 months and 26 days of creditable active service and had 95 days of lost time.
Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness. The regulation provided for the discharge of individuals by reason of unfitness with an undesirable discharge when it had been determined that an individual’s military record was characterized by one of more of the following: frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities; sexual perversion; drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit forming narcotic drugs or marijuana; an established pattern for shirking; or an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts.
On 26 November 1973, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his 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. 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.
2. 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.
3. The Board is cognizant of the applicant’s young age when he enlisted; however, he was able to successfully complete basic combat training and advanced individual training. His immaturity does not excuse the misconduct, especially stealing from a fellow soldier, for which he was separated and is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
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
__RVO__ __ SK _ _ _JPI __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002069577 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/07/18 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1961/05/09 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-208 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A51.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075897C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 6 November 1961, the pin in his right tibia was removed and a cast applied. On 5 September 1962, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness, with a discharge under other than honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005876C070205
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 October 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060005876 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. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. As a result, there is no basis for granting the applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089227C070403
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. On 3 November 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade to honorable.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056910C070420
On 20 December 1960, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 23 August – 27 November 1960. On 30 March 1961, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness with an undesirable, discharge UOTHC. On 6 March 1968, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080001162
There is no evidence of record to show that applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 is the current regulation that governs the separation of enlisted personnel. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063818C070421
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 separation authority...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077695C070215
The applicant was released from confinement on 10 August 1960 pursuant to the modification of the sentence announced in Special Court-Martial Order Number 5, Headquarters, US Army, Hawaii, dated 9 August 1960, which directed that so much of the earlier approved sentence in excess of confinement at hard labor for 1 month and forfeiture of $43.00 per month for 1 month was set aside. The applicant was discharged on 30 January 1961 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208. DISCUSSION :...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070000693
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 26 June 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070000693 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 12 June 1963, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that he be issued an undesirable discharge. Since the applicants record of service included seven nonjudicial...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070013857
On 7 September 1965, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness, with an undesirable discharge and a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence that would warrant granting the relief requested.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070013857
On 7 September 1965, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness, with an undesirable discharge and a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence that would warrant granting the relief requested.