| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Member | ||
| Ms. Lana E. McGlynn | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his UD was the result of his youth, immaturity, not knowing his biological father, martial problems, and personal problems, all of which impaired his ability to serve in the Army. He states that he was harassed and mistreated by a noncommissioned officer (NCO) in his unit, which led him to consuming alcohol more than he should have. He states that he is now a productive citizen, a responsible father and husband, who is free of any incarceration and has supported veterans causes and legislative issues since his discharge. He now requests that the Board consider his poor health and old age, and grant him an upgrade of his discharge in order to restore his self pride. In support of his application, he submits a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214) and 15 letters of support.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 11 July 1961, the applicant entered the Army for a period of 3 years. He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 117.07
(Light Weapons Infantryman) and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private first class/E-3.
The applicant’s record reveals no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition during his active duty tenure. However, it does contain a disciplinary history that shows he was convicted of the following offenses by a special court-martial on the following two occasions:
24 September 1962, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 9 July 1962 to 2 August 1962; and 22 August 1963, for being AWOL from 20 June 1963 to
1 August 1963.
On 28 August 1963, the applicant’s commander notified him that action was being initiated to eliminate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness. The commander stated that the reasons for the action were the applicant’s disciplinary history, record of confinement, adverse attitude towards the service, and chronic AWOL related offenses. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation action notification, waived his right to counsel, and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
Although he initially waived his right to an administrative separation board, on
13 September 1963, a board of officers convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 to determine if he should be discharged from the Army because of unfitness. While the Board proceedings are on file, the final board findings and recommendations are not contained in the record.
On 3 October 1963, the applicant was discharged and issued a UD. At the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 1 year, 9 months, and
23 days of creditable active service and had accrued 153 of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.
The letters of support provided by the applicant attest to his successful accomplishments since his separation from the Army.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel having undesirable habits and traits of character. Paragraph 2 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel for unfitness when there was evidence of an antisocial or amoral trend, chronic alcoholism, drug addiction, pathological lying, or misconduct. An undesirable discharge 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. As requested by the applicant, the Board considered his contentions and the letters of support for an upgrade of his discharge. However, even though he is to be congratulated on his excellent post service conduct, these factors alone are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief in light of his extensive disciplinary history and undistinguished overall record of service.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s discharge was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations in effect at the time. The Board is satisfied that the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process, and it concludes that his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service. Therefore, it finds an upgrade of his discharge is not warranted at this time.
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
__FNE__ __ TSK _ _ _LEM __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002070670 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/08/13 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19631003 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-208 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Unfit |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.5000 |
| 2. | 144.9301 |
| 3. | 144.9307 |
| 4. | 144.9323 |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089063C070403
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. The applicant's military records do not support his claim that he was guaranteed welding training upon enlistment. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077865
The evidence of record confirms that the eighth digit of the applicant’s service number is 6 vice 8 as is currently listed in Item 2 (Service Number) of his DD Form 214. This is the unit entered in the applicant’s DD Form 214; therefore, the Board concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support this specific request for relief. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by amending Item 2 (Service Number) of the DD Form 214 of the individual...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077865C070215
The evidence of record confirms that the eighth digit of the applicant’s service number is 6 vice 8 as is currently listed in Item 2 (Service Number) of his DD Form 214. This is the unit entered in the applicant’s DD Form 214; therefore, the Board concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support this specific request for relief. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by amending Item 2 (Service Number) of the DD Form 214 of the individual...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021019
The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD) to an honorable discharge. Accordingly, he was discharged on 29 April 1965 in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 with a UD. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606824C070209
He recommended that the applicant be separated from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability. On 22 July 1963 the applicants commanding officer recommended that the applicant be discharged with an undesirable type discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness. He stated that he was recommending discharge under Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness instead of Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability as recommended by the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009827
On 3 May 1963, the applicant was discharged accordingly. There is no evidence indicating that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. His overall record of service and extensive disciplinary history did not support the issue of a GD or HD at the time of his discharge, and does not support an upgrade at this time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120019033
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time of the applicant's discharge from active duty, provided procedures and guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel having undesirable habits and traits of character. The separation authority determined that his misconduct warranted his discharge under other than honorable conditions with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040008869C070208
On 18 August 1962, he was assigned to Fort Benning, Georgia for completion of airborne training. He had completed 2 years, 1 month and 16 days of active military service. The available evidence does not indicate the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board under that board's 15-year statute of limitation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075923C070403
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that about 1 year after he enlisted in the Army, he started receiving letters and phone calls from his brothers, his sisters and from the family minister regarding his father and mother’s conditions at home. After being AWOL for about 4 months, he realized that things were getting better and decided to turn himself in. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088369C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He states that he was instructed to sign the blank form and that it was not until two years ago that he ordered a copy of his military records and discovered that the ORD Form 493 contained his initials. The psychiatrist recommended that he be separated from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208.