| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | ||
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he got into fight in the barracks with two African American soldiers. The next day he awoke to find himself handcuffed and shackled. He inquired as to what had happened and was told that he would be court-martialed. No one ever took into consideration the amount of alcohol that had been consumed by he and his co-workers. He claims that at the time, there were many discrimination problems, and he was informed by his unit commander that he intended to make an example of him. He claims that he was treated unfairly and was discriminated against by the Army. He further states that as a result of these actions that never should have occurred, he has suffered for 27 years of his life, and now feels that an upgrade of his discharge is warranted. In support of his application, he submits a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214), a Report of Mental Status Evaluation (DA Form 3822), and a Prisoner’s Release Order (DA Form 357).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 13 September 1972, the applicant entered the Army for a period of 4 years. He was trained and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman), and the highest rank he attained while on active duty was specialist four/E-4.
The applicant’s records reveal no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition during his active duty tenure. However, it does show a disciplinary history, which includes his conviction by a general court-martial of two specifications of assault and battery, and failure to obey a lawful order.
On 25 May 1975, the applicant was found guilty by a general court-martial of striking a captain, a superior commissioned officer in the execution of his duties; striking a first lieutenant, a superior commissioned officer; disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer; assaulting a private; and wrongfully communicating a threat to a private. The resultant sentence included a reduction to private/E-1 (PV1), forfeiture of $150.00 pay per month for twelve months, and confinement at hard labor for 12 months.
On 30 May 1975, the convening authority approved and ordered executed only so much of the sentence that provided for confinement at hard labor of six months, forfeiture of $150.00 pay per month for 6 months, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade of PV1.
The applicant’s discharge packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge processing is not in the record. However, there is a properly constituted separation document (DD Form 214) on file, which contains the authority and characterization of the applicant’s discharge.
The DD Form 214 confirms that on 22 October 1975, the applicant was administratively discharged with an UD. The authority for his separation was Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-5a (1), and the reason for his discharge was unfitness, for frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. This separation document also shows that at the time, the applicant had completed total of 2 years, 8 months, and 15 days of creditable active military service and had accrued a total of 145 days of time lost due to confinement.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel who are found unfit or unsuitable for further military service. Paragraph 13-5a(1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness. 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. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that his discharge was unjust, but it finds that there is insufficient evidence to support this claim. In addition, the Board considered the applicant’s claim that he had suffered the consequences of the discharge long enough. However, it concludes that this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.
2. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the Army. However, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 that was authenticated by the applicant with his signature on the date of his separation. This document contains the authority and reason for his separation. Therefore, lacking independent evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes government regularity in the discharge process.
3. The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. In addition, the Board concludes that the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service and was appropriate based on the authority and reason for his discharge. Thus, the Board concludes that the requested relief is not warranted.
4. 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.
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
__CLA__ ___MHM___ __JTM__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002072692 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/09/05 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19751011 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200. paragraph 13-5(a)1 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | unfitness- frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with authorities. |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 166.6400 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008522
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant upon his discharge shows he was separated under the provisions of paragraph 13-5a(1), Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), by reason of unfitness (Frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with authorities) and that he received a UD. This document also shows he completed a total of 2 years, 5 months, and 2 days of...
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 | CY1997 | 9710161C070209
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. Army Regulation 635-200...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013451
The applicant's military records include documentation indicating he was a target of racial harassment on 9 July 1976 while stationed at Fort Carson, CO. 8. On 20 October 1976, the applicant was advised by his unit commander that he was recommending his separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature. b. Paragraph 3-7b states a general discharge is a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016665
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 March 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080016665 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. However, the applicant's DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he was discharged on 3 July 1975 with an undesirable discharge (characterized as under other than honorable conditions) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13 (Separation for Unfitness or Unsuitability), paragraph 13-5a(1) by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008608
On 17 March 1976, the applicant's commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to discharge him from the U.S. Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 13-5a(1), for unfitness. The applicant contends that his under other than honorable conditions discharge should be upgraded to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge because he was young and made only one mistake during the period of his military...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004993
The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-5a(1), with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. However, the evidence of record shows that at the time of his discharge a mental evaluation was conducted that confirmed he had no significant mental illness.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065634C070421
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The record also contains a copy of a Report of Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions (DA Form 268), dated 5 December 1974, which confirms that on that date the applicant was pending separation processing under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004100C070208
Leonard G. Hassell | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The record does contain a separation document (DD Form 214) that confirms the applicant was separated on 25 September 1973. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year statute of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010589
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 2 June 1976, the separation authority approved the FSM's recommendation for separation and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. ___________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.