| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Joyce A. Hall | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | ||
| Mr. William D. Barr | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to general under honorable conditions.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that there was no error or injustice in the decision to separate him from the Army. He is asking for an upgrade of his discharge based on his good behavior since being discharge. He was a good soldier during the nine months that he served. The applicant submits in support of his application several letters and his police record.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant entered the Army on 20 April 1971 for 2 years. He completed basic combat training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, and advanced individual training at Fort Polk, Louisiana. He was awarded military occupation specialty 11B10 (Infantryman). The highest pay grade he achieved was pay grade E-4.
On or about 8 October 1971, the applicant departed for an assignment at Fort Carson, Colorado. While assigned to a unit at Fort Carson the applicant was involved in a fight. The altercation led to him being charged with voluntary manslaughter. On 8 December 1972, the applicant entered a plea of guilty. He was convicted and was sentenced to 3 to 5 years in the Colorado State Penitentiary.
On 2 March 1973, while in confinement the applicant’s unit commander
initiated separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, for misconduct, conviction by a civil court. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation action. He requested to have his case considered by a board of officers, requested personal appearance, and representation by legal counsel. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf but decline to do so. He also indicated that he did not intend to appeal his civil conviction.
On 30 April 1973, the board of officers recommended that the applicant be separated from the Army with an undesirable discharge. On 13 August
1973, the board’s recommendation was approved by the appropriate authority.
On 21 August 1973, the applicant was discharged, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, for a civil conviction.
The Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. On 31 December 1981, the ADRB, by unanimous vote, denied the applicant’s request.
On 19 November 1997, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records previously denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for misconduct (fraudulent entry, conviction by civil court, and absence without leave or desertion). The regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the elimination of enlisted personnel for misconduct when they were initially convicted by civil authorities, or action taken against them, which is tantamount to a finding of guilty, or an offense for which the maximum penalty under the Uniform Code of Military Justice is death or confinement in excess of 1 year.
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. The type of discharge given was and is still appropriate considering the reason for his civil conviction.
3. The Board commends the applicant for his good post-discharge behavior as a responsible citizen and his willingness to furnish letters vouching for his character and furnishing a copy of his police report. However, these factors do not overcome the serious nature of the offense, which led to his discharge.
4. The type of discharge directed and the reason therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
5. 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 __ __ BJE _ __WDB __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002072635 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/09/10 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1973/08/21 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-206 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A61.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.6100 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016305
Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 12 April 1973, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for misconduct - conviction by civil authorities. He contended at that time that he felt that his discharge was unfair because he was punished for the same offense by civil and military authorities and had not violated any military regulations. The applicant's overall record of service has been considered.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014928
The punishment included a reduction to sergeant, pay grade E5, forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for 2 months (suspended), and 14 days extra duty. He stated that upon his arrival to Fort Carson he received $220.00 in July 1972; no pay in August or September 1972; $9.00 in October; and about $25.00 in the months of November and December 1972. On 31 October 1973, the board of officers recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040008684C070208
He had completed 1 year, 8 months and 10 days of active military service. At the time, a UD was considered appropriate. The applicant was convicted of possession of a narcotic drug and sentenced to serve an indeterminate term not to exceed 5 years in civil confinement.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063812C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006649
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, provided the authority for the administrative separation or retention of enlisted personnel who had committed an act and or acts of misconduct. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) provides the current Army policy for enlisted separations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011201
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 March 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060011201 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. Records show the applicant was arrested on 11 June 1969 by civilian authorities. On 2 March 1976, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080638C070215
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. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a discharge upgrade.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060007771C070205
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD), characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant states, in effect, that it has been 33 years since his discharge from the Army, and he feels he served his country honorably, and did his time for what he was asked to do. The evidence of record clearly shows that it has been over 33 years since he received his UD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014141C071029
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 April 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060014141 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 29 November 1973, the applicant was discharged, with an undesirable discharge, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for civil conviction. As a result, the time for the applicant to file a request for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120003831
On 17 March 1971 he was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 due to conviction by civil authorities. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The applicant's overall record of service has been considered.