| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member | |
| Mr. William D. Powers | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was told by the recruiting officer that as long as the United States was not at war, soldiers could have their dependents with them; however, after serving 1 ½ years, he was told that he would have to go to Korea, to a dependent restricted assignment. He goes on to state that he considered this to be a breach of contract when the recruiter lied to him, so he quit.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted in Dallas, Texas, on 21 January 1974, for a period of 3 years, assignment to Fort Hood, Texas and training as a wheel vehicle mechanic.
He completed his training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and was transferred to Fort Hood on 6 April 1974. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-2 on 21 May 1974.
On 26 July 1974, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty. His punishment consisted of extra duty for 7 days.
On 7 February 1975, NJP was imposed against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 3 February to 4 February 1975. His punishment consisted of extra duty, a forfeiture of pay (suspended for 30 days) and restriction (suspended for 30 days).
On 11 April 1975, NJP was imposed against him for being AWOL from 7 April to 8 April 1975. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and restriction
On 14 April 1975, NJP was imposed against him for being AWOL from 24 March to 25 March 1975. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.
On 8 May 1975, NJP was imposed against him for being AWOL from 21 April to 23 April 1975 and for failure to go to his place of duty on 28 April 1975. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 (suspended for 90 days), a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.
On 30 May 1975, NJP was imposed against him for being AWOL from 23 May to 27 May 1975. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and extra duty (both suspended for 30 days).
On 9 July 1975, after having been rehabilitatively transferred to another battery, the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to discharge the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unfitness based on his frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities. He cites as the basis for his recommendation, the applicant’s disciplinary record and his failure to respond to numerous counseling sessions from all levels of his chain of command.
On 16 July 1975, NJP was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and extra duty (suspended for 30 days).
After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived all of his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
The appropriate authority (a major general) approved the recommendation for discharge on 20 August 1975 and directed that he be furnished with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 11 September 1975, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unfitness due to his frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities. He had served 1 year, 6 months and 13 days of total active service and had 39 days of lost time due to AWOL.
At the time of his discharge he was informed in writing of the procedures to apply to the Army Discharge Review Board within the 15-year statute of limitations of that board. However, there is no indication that he ever did so.
A review of his enlistment contract also shows that he acknowledged in writing that all promises made to him were done so in writing on his contract. He also signed a statement of understanding indicating that he understood that his enlistment contract carried no promise whatsoever relative to furnishing transportation for dependents to overseas commands or to the furnishing of family quarters. Additionally, there is no evidence in his records to show that orders were ever published reassigning him to Korea or any overseas area.
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, in effect at the time, established policy and provided guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel found to be unfit or unsuitable for further military service. An individual could be found unfit for various types of misconduct that included frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate and there has never been an automatic provision for upgrade of such a 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 applicant’s administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.
2. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.
3. The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board and appear to be without merit. There is no evidence that his contract was breached. Additionally, the applicant’s pattern of misconduct began within 3 months of his arrival at Fort Hood and continued until his discharge. Accordingly, the Board finds that his undistinguished record of service during such a short time is properly reflected by the discharge he was issued at the time.
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
__js ____ __wdp __ __dh____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002069648 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/09/12 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1975/09/11 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/CH13 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | UNFIT |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 592 | 144.5000/A51.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050008804C070206
On 30 November 1972, while serving in the pay grade of E-4, he reenlisted for a period of 3 years and assignment to Fort Meade, Maryland. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080332C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 26 January 1976, the applicant's commander advised the applicant of his rights and preferred charges against him for the AWOL offense. There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008618
However, promotion to the pay grade of E-3 required 12 months time in service and 4 months time in grade. The applicant had NJP imposed against him 2 months after his arrival at Fort Hood and was under a suspended punishment for 3 months after that, which made him ineligible to be promoted. The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his application and the evidence of record that any error or injustice occurred with regards to his promotions and/or discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075118C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 2 November 1972, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty. He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 6 June 1977, for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011179C070205
He was transferred to the United States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, to serve his confinement. Nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for that offense. 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 that Board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071640C070402
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. 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 within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050016056C070206
On 14 October 1975, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for disorderly conduct (two specifications). 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. Since the applicant’s record of service included nine nonjudicial punishments and 24 days of lost time, his record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015132
On 23 December 1975, the applicants immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate elimination from the Army under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel) by reason of unfitness. On 9 February 1976, the separation authority approved the recommendation to discharge the applicant and directed he be discharged under the provisions of paragraph 13-5 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of unfitness and that he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083895C070212
Due to his abusive nature and drinking problem, the court system has ordered him to complete an anger management course and to get treatment for his drinking problem. On 29 November 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.Army Regulation 635-200, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13, then in effect (currently chapter 14), established the policy and prescribed procedures for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004482
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. Although the applicant contends that the majority of his service record is acceptable and that his discharge was based on one misunderstanding, the available records show his record of service included a bar to reenlistment, four...