| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Joyce A. Hall | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Kathleen A. Newman | Member | ||
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was unable to adjust to military life.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 29 July 1959, at the age of 17 years and 4 months the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years with parental consent. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 640.00 (Light Vehicle Driver). The highest pay grade he achieved was pay grade E-3.
On 15 August 1960, while assigned to a unit at Moehringen, Germany the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial (SCM) of disobeying a lawful order and of being disrespectful in language to a superior noncommissioned officer. He was sentenced to a forfeiture of $50.00 pay and to be reduced to pay grade E-2.
On 21 October 1960, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of
failure to repair and of wrongfully appropriating a ¼ ton truck, property of the U.S. Government. He was sentenced to 14 days hard labor and a forfeiture of $50.00 pay.
On 5 November 1960, the applicant was convicted by a SCM of assault with a
knife. He was sentenced to 15 days hard labor, a forfeiture of $45.00 and to be reduced to pay grade E-1.
On 8 November 1960, the commander requested that the applicant go before a board of officers to determined whether the applicant should be discharged prior to expiration of his term of service under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-208 for unfitness. The commander’s recommendation was based on the applicant’s three court-martials and unsuccessful attempts to help the applicant salvage his military career.
The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him. The applicant waived personal appearance, consideration, and representation by counsel before a board of officers. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but declined to do so.
On 10 November 1960, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation, which diagnosed him as having a passive aggressive reaction, chronic and severe.
The psychiatrist determined that the applicant could distinguish right from wrong, possessed the mental capacity to participate in administrative proceedings and there was no evidence of psychosis or neurosis.
On 25 November 1960, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
On 9 December 1960, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness. He had completed a total of 1 year, 4 months and 11 days of active military service.
On 9 May 1967, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade.
Army Regulation 635-208, then in effect, provided, in pertinent part, the policies, procedures, and guidance for the elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unfit for further military service. However, at the time of the discharge a 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. 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 type of discharge directed and the reason therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
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
_ _INW_ _ __KAN__ __RTD__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002071341 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/06/27 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1960/12/06 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A40.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.4000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079621C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 29 March 1961, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation to discharge the applicant with a UD. The record does not support, and the applicant has not presented any evidence that he was told that his discharge would automatically be upgraded.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050015643C070206
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 August 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050015643 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 4 January 1960, the applicant acknowledged that he had been advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness. The separation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100798C070208
The unit commander also states the applicant was good at performing those duties that he was assigned most of the time and that there appeared to be nothing wrong with him physically or mentally. The applicant may have performed assigned tasks well most of the time, even so, his personal conduct and attitude rendered both his conduct and efficiency rating unsatisfactory and he received no awards. The Board concludes that the applicant has provided no evidence to establish a basis for the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084250C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board convened on 24 April 1957 and after hearing testimony from the applicant, whereas he stated that he wanted out of the Army, the board of officers found that he was unfit for further service and recommended that he be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness. The applicant's commander submitted a recommendation to discharge him...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059182C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 6 December 1957, the board of officers recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 because of unfitness due an established pattern of shirking with an undesirable discharge. However, his records contain a Case Report and Directive from the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) which indicates that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069577C070402
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. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076587C070215
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. The Board reviewed the applicant's record of service which included four nonjudicial punishments, one special court-martial conviction, one summary court-martial conviction and 38 days lost.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077093C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The interviewing officer went on to state that the applicant had the intelligence to be rehabilitated; however, he believed that in view of his desire to get out of the Army, the applicant was not properly motivated for completing his service obligation. There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070017762
On 6 February 1961, the applicants unit commander initiated separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness. He had completed 2 years, 7 months, and 28 days of creditable active service, and had 206 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement. There is no evidence of record, nor has the applicant provided sufficient evidence to support upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050017155C070206
The unit commander stated as a reason why it would not be considered feasible or appropriate to recommend elimination under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 was the applicant’s attitudes of complete disregard for authority and his attitudes toward life in general. On 7 December 1960, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 with issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. After review of the evidence...