| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | ||
| Ms. Margaret V. Thompson | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was informed upon his discharge that it would be upgraded after 6 months. He provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 January 1973. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63B (Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).
On 18 October 1973, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failing to go to his appointed place of duty. He accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ on 7 June 1974 for operating a vehicle in a reckless manner by backing up without a ground guide and thereby causing an accident. On 21 June 1974, he accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for operating a vehicle in a reckless manner by disregarding a traffic signal and thereby causing an accident.
On 27 May 1975, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of being disorderly in uniform in a public place. He was sentenced to forfeit $200 pay, to be restricted for 30 days, and to perform extra duty for 30 days.
On or about 17 June 1975, the applicant received a bar to reenlistment. His record of Article 15s and court-martial plus his pending trial by civil authority for attempted murder and pending action for drunk/disorderly conduct and assault on a military policeman were cited as the basis for the bar.
On 14 August 1975, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for failing to go to his appointed place of duty. On 13 January 1976, he accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for absenting himself from his place of duty.
On 15 January 1976, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of wrongfully appropriating a 5-ton truck, the property of the U. S. Government and of damaging that truck through neglect. He was sentenced to be reduced to pay grade E-1, to be confined at hard labor for 6 months, and to forfeit $240.00 pay for 6 months.
On 4 February 1976, while in confinement at the Retraining Brigade, Fort Riley, KS, the applicant received a social work evaluation. It was noted that although he was scheduled to separate upon his expiration term of service after the completion of training, he stated that he wanted out “now” and he did not care what type of discharge he received. He was diagnosed as having an inadequate personality, chronic, severe.
On 20 February 1976, the applicant received a mental status evaluation by a medical doctor. 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 11 February 1976, the applicant’s commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsuitability.
On 18 February 1976, the applicant was advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the separation action. He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, he waived personal appearance before such a board, he waived representation by counsel, and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 23 February 1976, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be given a general discharge.
On 25 February 1976, the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge under honorable conditions, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsuitability. He had completed 2 years, 11 months, and 19 days of creditable active service and had 51 days of lost time.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. At the time, chapter 13 contained the policy and outlined the procedures for separating an individual for unsuitability when it was clearly established that it was unlikely that he would develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.
The U. S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable. The Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically stated that no factors should be established which would require automatic change or denial of a change in discharge.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, 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. 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 and as he indicated he desired. Considering his numerous infractions of military discipline, the characterization of his discharge as general was more than generous.
3. 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
__RJW__ ___LE___ __MVT__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002071392 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/08/08 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1976/02/25 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, ch 13. . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A40.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013232
However, his service record contains a DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 27 October 1976 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Separations), paragraph 13-5a(1), for unsuitability, with an undesirable discharge in pay grade E-1. There is no evidence of record to show 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. Army Regulation 635-200,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002308
This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. Furthermore, he has not provided any documents other than his hand-written statement, that the commander tried to cover up the real circumstances of the truck accident. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140002308 3 ARMY BOARD FOR...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071854C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: He stated that he was proud of his Vietnam service but was ashamed of the conduct which led to his court-martial and to his present situation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100028904
There is no evidence he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations for an upgrade of his discharge. The evidence of record shows he was 18 years and 9 months of age when he enlisted in the RA. _______ _ 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 | CY2014 | 20140015892
On 6 June 1975, the applicant was given an order from his commanding officer to proceed to a site at Fort Bragg and remain there until 8 June 1975. The military vehicle in which he returned to the barracks from the field site had been found abandoned about 30 miles from Fort Bragg. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 19 August 1976.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007018
His immediate commander subsequently initiated separation action against him, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, by reason of unsuitability. There is no evidence in his available record, and he did not provide any evidence, that shows while serving on active duty he was treated for, or diagnosed with, any mental/medical condition/disorder that permanently prevented him from performing his assigned duties, was found to be unfitting, or required referral to a medical...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013246
On 15 July 1975, the applicant pled not guilty at a special court-martial to one specification of being AWOL during the period from on or about 6 June 1975 through on or about 11 June 1975. There is no evidence that indicates the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the applicant's records and the applicant did not provide substantiating evidence that shows his extensive history...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008640
He was charged with another AWOL soon after arriving in Vietnam, which he believed was very unfair. On 8 July 1971, the appropriate authority approved the applicants request and directed he receive an undesirable discharge. On 14 July 1971, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with an undesirable discharge and a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110013191
However, his records contain a DD Form 214 which shows he was discharged from active duty in pay grade E-1 on 10 February 1977 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, and issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge. An individual separated by reason of unfitness will be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, except that an Honorable or General Discharge Certificate may be issued if the individual has...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009675
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 November 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090009675 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. There is no indication 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.