| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr. | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member | |
| Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: He was charged with burglary and the judge told him that if he would join the Army, the judge would drop the charges. When he came home on emergency leave he was arrested on the burglary charge. 91/2 Months later his counselor told him that if he didn't want to mess with the Army when he got out of jail he should sign the attached papers. He was only 17 years old and ignorant of the law. He did not know they had no right to do this because he was U.S. Government property. They never allowed him to communicate with his commanding officer. He dates the discovery of the alleged error or injustice as 8 February 2002 and believes that the Board should consider the merits of the case because he feels like his rights as a citizen and as a soldier have been violated.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted and entered active duty on 31 August 1971. In part II of his DA Form 3286, Statement of Enlistment, the applicant responded "NO" to the question, "Have you ever been arrested, cited, charged, or held by any Federal, State, County, City or other law enforcement authorities or by Juvenile Court or Juvenile Probation Officials for any violation of Federal Law, State law, County, or Municipal Law, Regulation or Ordinance."
On 14 October 1971, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for a 16-day absence without leave (AWOL).
He was AWOL again on 17 October 1971. On 2 February 1972 it was learned that the applicant had been apprehended [under another name] in Atchison County Missouri for breaking and entering on 15 June 1971 and had been released on bond on 3 July 1971. On 7 December 1971, he had pled guilty to second degree burglary and had been sentenced to 2 years imprisonment in the state penitentiary.
His commander notified him of recommended discharge for civil conviction. He was warned that he could expect to receive an undesirable discharge but that action would be suspended to give him a chance to exercise his rights. He was notified of his rights to request or waive a board of officers, to be represented by
counsel and to submit written statements in his own behalf. He was informed that the separation action would be suspended for approximately 30 days if the applicant did not respond to the letter of notification and would be suspended indefinitely if he chose to appeal the conviction.
On 4 April 1972, the applicant waived his rights to have a board of officers consider his case and to be represented by counsel. He also chose not to submit statements in his own behalf and he stated that he did not intend to appeal the conviction.
The separation authority approved the recommended discharge and directed that an Undesirable Discharge Certificate be issued.
On 18 May 1972 the applicant was separated with an undesirable discharge. He had 29 days of creditable service and 231 days lost time.
Army Regulation 635-206, then in effect, provided, in pertinent part, that an enlisted member who was convicted by a civilian court of an offense for which the authorized punishment under the UCMJ included confinement of 1 year or more was to be considered for elimination. When separation for civil conviction was warranted an undesirable discharge was considered appropriate.
The Manual for Courts-Martial, Table of Maximum Punishments, shows that, at the time, the Uniform Code of Military Justice provided for up to 10 years of confinement for burglary and up to 5 years for housebreaking.
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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. There is no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
2. The applicant was asked about his arrest record when he enlisted. Even if he believed that the charges had been dropped, if he had answered honestly, he would have set in motion a chain of events that would have precluded his enlistment.
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 this 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
__RVO__ ___RTD__ ___KWL_ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002069808 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020725 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19720518 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-206 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A61.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060017036C071029
There is no evidence, and the applicant provided none, to support his contention he was on probation on the day of his enlistment, and had been on probation since October 1962, and a waiver was required for his enlistment in the Army. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-206 for being convicted or adjudged a juvenile offender by a civil court during his current term of active military service. The applicant underwent a mental status...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012723
The applicant's records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 2 years on 1 May 1970. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066981C070402
The applicant states that his discharge is unjust and needs to be changed to honorable or upgraded to a better discharge. However, his DD Form 214 indicates that he was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 26 August 1974 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, Section VI, for misconduct – conviction by a civil court or adjudged a juvenile. The Board noted the applicant's request for correction of item 9a (Type of Separation) on his DD Form 214 to show "honorable."
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021196
In item 5 (I Request the Following Error or Injustice in the Record be Corrected) of his application, the applicant states, "Yes." His immediate commander initiated separation action against him under Army Regulation 635-206 for his civil conviction. The evidence of record shows the applicant was convicted by a civilian court of burglary and he was sentenced to confinement.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015070
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 6 April 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090015070 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 16 December 1968, the applicant was declared AWOL when he failed to return from a period of reenlistment leave. Paragraph 1-13a stated that an honorable discharge was a separation with honor.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011276
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. On 20 July 1970, the applicant's intermediate commander recommended approval of the applicant's discharge with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate and remarked that the applicant was convicted by a civil court and had been AWOL on 7 occasions for a total of 129 days. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009797
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 28 November 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, paragraph 33, and directed the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The applicant's DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he was discharged from the U.S. Army under other than honorable conditions on 2 January 1974 under the provisions of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026787
The applicant was accordingly discharged on 29 May 1974. The applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, by reason of a civil conviction. _______ _ _X______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019821
On 13 January 1972, the applicant appeared in civil court before a judge and was convicted and sentenced to zero to six years confinement at Ossining Correctional Facility, Ossining, New York. The applicant's request to upgrade his under other than honorable discharge to an honorable was carefully considered and found not to be supported by the evidence. Based on his record of indiscipline, which includes 704 days of lost time due to AWOL and civil confinement, the applicant's service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010569C070208
He states, that he was already worried about his family’s welfare, when his mother wrote to say that her lights and water was turned off. On 16 June 1972, the separation authority directed that he be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, by reason of misconduct (civil conviction), and directed that the applicant receive an undesirable discharge. On 4 October 1976, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable...