| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | ||
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: Through counsel, that he had informed his recruiter that he had a felony conviction for dealing cocaine. The recruiter told him that it would be no problem because he would file for a waiver and that would take care of everything. To his surprise, he was later summoned before his commander and told that charges were pending against him for misconduct – fraudulent entry. He entered the military with the best of intentions and found himself ashamed and embarrassed for being treated like a criminal when he had been totally honest. He asks for an upgraded discharge so he can access veterans’ benefits he believes he deserves. He provides his Report of Separation from Active Duty, DD Form 214, for the period ending 6 October 1978 as supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He initially enlisted in the Army National Guard around March 1978. His Army National Guard enlistment contract is not available. He served on initial active duty for training (IADT) from 30 April – 6 October 1978 and was released from IADT with an honorable characterization of service.
The applicant enlisted in the U. S. Army Reserve Delayed Entry Program on 23 August 1979. At this time, he completed a Record of Military Processing – Armed Forces of the United States, DD Form 1966/5. In item 35a, he initialed that he had taken a narcotic substance. In item 35d, he initialed that his use of alcoholic beverages had never resulted in the loss of a job, arrest by police, or treatment for alcoholism. In items 36a and 36b, he initialed that he had been arrested and convicted or fined (whether the citation or charge was dropped or dismissed or he was found not guilty or whether the record in his case was “sealed,” expunged, or otherwise stricken form the court record). In item 36f, where he was to explain any “yes” answers, he indicated that he was arrested for a parking violation in 1972 and fined. In item 37, Remarks, he indicated that he tried marijuana once or twice but had no further desire to do so.
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 September 1979 and was assigned to Fort Hood, TX.
Apparently, a routine local agencies check revealed that the applicant had been arrested in September 1974 for possession of a smoking device, possession of a controlled substance, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor; in October 1974 for delivery of a controlled substance (cocaine); on 5 August 1975 for theft and illegal consumption; on 12 August 1975 for public intoxication; on 31 October 1977 for disorderly conduct and public drunkenness; on 17 November 1977 for criminal mischief; on 8 December 1977 for failure to appear; on 10 September 1978 for public drunkenness; and on 1 October 1978 for driving under the influence.
On 19 March 1980, the applicant completed a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation. He completed a mental status examination on this date and was found to be mentally responsible, 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 or about 27 March 1980, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, misconduct - concealment of conviction by civil court.
On 27 March 1980, the applicant was advised by counsel of the basis for the separation action. He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived personal appearance before such a board, and waived representation by counsel. He submitted a statement in his own behalf. He stated that he explained to his recruiter about his past police record. The recruiter’s reply was, “I don’t want to hear about it. It is not important.” The recruiter also stated in front of him and his wife that if it ever came up the recruiter would deny it. The applicant’s wife provided a statement substantiating the applicant’s statement.
On 21 April 1980, the commanding general approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant’s enlistment be voided.
On 14 May 1980, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct - fraudulent entry. His DD Form 214 for this period, item 24 shows his character of service as “NA.” Item 12 shows he had no credit for active service for this period; 5 months and 7 days of prior active service; and 1 year and 6 days credit for inactive service.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. At the time, chapter 14 established policy and prescribed procedures for processing a soldier for separation due to misconduct by reason of fraudulent entry into the service. Paragraph 14-5a(1) provided that in all cases involving recruiter connivance the member’s enlistment would be voided by issuing orders releasing the individual from Army control for fraudulent entry.
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. Any misconduct on the part of the applicant’s recruiter did not excuse the applicant from omitting his record of civil arrests and convictions on his DD Form 1966/5. Indeed, his record of civil arrests was much more extensive than just the conviction for dealing cocaine which he contends he informed his recruiter. His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. His service was properly voided in accordance with regulatory guidance in effect at the time.
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
__FNE__ __MHM__ __DPH__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002072794 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/07/16 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UNCHAR |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19800514 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, ch 14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A62.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001674
The applicant states: a. If the information was disqualifying a DD Form 214 would be prepared and distributed in accordance with Army Regulation 635-5 (Personnel Separations - Separation Documents) for all individuals released from custody and control due to voided service. The evidence of record shows the applicant's enlistment was voided in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for fraudulent entry based on his concealment of a vast record of civilian arrests and convictions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012297
On 7 June 1978, the separation authority ordered the applicant's enlistment voided in accordance with paragraph 14-5a of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel) and the applicant's release from military control by reason of fraudulent enlistment. Item 12c (Net Active Service This Period) of this form shows the entry "00 00 00," item 24 (Character of Service) shows the entry "NA" (not applicable), and item 26 (Separation Code) shows the entry "YKG." The version...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006193
The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) in support of his request. The applicant was convicted on 17 October 1975, sentenced to confinement for 6 months, probation for 2 years, and required to pay court cost of $29.00. On 10 September 1977, the commander submitted his recommendation to separate the applicant from the Army, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct-fraudulent entry, due to his concealment of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007794
On 18 July 1978, the applicant's commander recommended that he be discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 due to fraudulent enlistment for failing to list his convictions in item 40 of his DD Form 1966/4. Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, in effect at the time, provided that commanders exercising general court-martial jurisdiction were authorized to approve a discharge of an enlisted person for fraudulent enlistment or to void a fraudulent enlistment by...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09157-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 August 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130010483
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) to show his character of service as under honorable conditions (general) and completion of 2 years of military service. The applicant later provided a copy of his record and SFC R____ P____ recorded the information in his military records. The regulation in effect at the time provided that individuals who had their enlistments voided by reason of fraudulent enlistment would receive no...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019821
He was discharged for fraudulent entry instead. On 15 July 1977, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant that discharge proceedings were initiated against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, by reason of fraudulent enlistment. Chapter 14 established policy and prescribed procedures for processing fraudulent entry cases and provided for the administrative disposition of enlisted personnel for misconduct...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004682
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. It also confirmed that if the applicant concealed such records he/she could, upon enlistment, be subject to disciplinary action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and/or discharge from military service with an other than honorable discharge. On 6 January 1978, the unit commander notified the applicant that discharge proceedings under the provisions of paragraph 14-3c, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) were...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608248C070209
He stated that he told the recruiter about his problems with drugs and his rehabilitation, and that his probation was in Newton County. On 30 March 1977 the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicants enlistment be voided, and that orders be published releasing the applicant from Army control because of fraudulent entry. The applicant was properly released from the Army and his service voided, because of fraudulent entry.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063032C070421
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 Board considered the following evidence: However, evidence of record shows the applicant procured enlistment in the Army by concealing prior civil convictions on his application for enlistment.