| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Paula Mokulis | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a more favorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That he does not believe that he should have been discharged for what he did because he was only eighteen years of age when he entered the Army and had never done drugs until he came into the Army. He further states that he should have been placed in some type of treatment program at the time. He also states that he is getting his life together and could use an upgrade of his discharge to help his two kids.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records, though somewhat incomplete, show:
The applicant enlisted in San Antonio, Texas, on 25 October 1974, for a period of 2 years. He successfully completed his basic combat training and was transferred to three separate installations before he could complete an advance individual training (AIT) program. He eventually completed AIT as a light weapons infantryman and was transferred to Korea on 28 June 1975.
On 20 August 1975, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 9 August to 12 August 1975. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.
Although the specifics are not present in the available records, his records show that he was confined by military authorities from 8 November to 24 November 1975. He was also barred from reenlistment.
On 4 December 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 (suspended for 30 days), a forfeiture of pay and restriction.
On 15 December 1975, NJP was imposed against him for being disrespectful towards two noncommissioned officers. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and restriction.
NJP was imposed against him on 9 March 1976, for the wrongful possession of marijuana. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.
The applicant was also confined by military authorities on 12 January 1976 and was subsequently transferred to the Army Retraining Brigade at Fort Riley, Kansas, on 19 February 1976, which is indicative that he was convicted by a court-martial.
The facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are also not present in the available records; however, his records do contain a duly constituted report of separation (DD Form 214) signed by the applicant, which shows that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 17 March 1976, from the Retraining Brigade, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness due to frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities. He had served 1 year, 2 months and 14 days of total active service and had 69 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
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 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 and personality disorders. 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. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative discharge was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations in effect at the time with no indication of any procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights. Accordingly, the type of discharge and the reasons therefore were appropriate given the circumstances in this case.
2. The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to his overall undistinguished record of service.
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
___ls ___ __pm ___ __dh____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002071640 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/08/06 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1976/03/17 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/CH13 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | UNFIT |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 583 | 144.5000/A51.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | 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 | CY2002 | 2002072151C070403
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: On 5 February 1977, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061667C070421
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 punishment imposed is not present in the available records.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710161
On 12 May 1975 the appropriate authority approved the findings and recommendations of the Board of Officers and directed the applicant be discharged with a UD. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. On 8 March 1977 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade to his discharge and found that the applicant was properly discharged.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004042C070205
He was sentenced to perform 45 days of extra duty, to be restricted for 45 days, and to forfeit $311 pay per month for 1 month. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Evidence of record shows the applicant had three nonjudicial punishments, one summary court-martial conviction, and one special court-martial conviction prior to being sent to the Retraining Brigade.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011711C070208
On 4 November 1971, while still in BCT, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 5 August 1973, for an upgrade of his discharge to a general discharge. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066379C070402
On 6 November 1978, the separation authority approved the board of officers recommendation and directed that the applicant be discharged from the service for misconduct due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with a general discharge. In accordance with a recommendation from a board of officers, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct. The Board reviewed the...
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 | 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...