| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Margaret V. Thompson | Member | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That at the time he entered the Army he was a 22 year old Sioux Indian from the reservation in South Dakota and did not know much. However, he knew how to drink beer, as did most of the young Sioux Indians on the reservation. He goes on to state that when he got paid at Fort Benning, Georgia, he went to town and became intoxicated. When he returned he was still intoxicated and laid down to sleep or passed out. He does not remember disobeying a lawful order but he must have because he was put in the stockade and charged with disobeying a lawful order. Since that time he has joined Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), has turned his life around, has maintained a sober lifestyle, has been a teacher, principal and superintendent and has earned a Ph.D. He requests that the Board expunge his record of derogatory information and upgrade his discharge to honorable. In support of his application, he submits three third party character references and a copy of his Federal Bureau of Investigation Record.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri, which destroyed millions of service records. However, reconstructed records show:
He was born on 25 September 1934 and was inducted in Sioux Fall, South Dakota, on 4 August 1955.
The facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not present in the available records. However, his report of separation (DD Form 214) shows that on 23 March 1955, while stationed at Fort Benning, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368, for unfitness due to habits and traits of character rendering retention in the service as undesirable. He had served 4 months and 24 days of active service and had 87 days of lost time.
While the basis for the decision is not present in the available records, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded his undesirable discharge to a general discharge on 4 September 1964.
The third party statements submitted in support of his application seek to applaud the applicant’s character and his accomplishments.
Army Regulation 615-368, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel by reason of unfitness. That regulation provided for the discharge of individuals who had demonstrated their unfitness by giving evidence of habits and traits of character manifested by misconduct. 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 separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. It must also be presumed that the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate even given the limited information contained in the available records.
3. Although the ADRB upgraded his discharge in 1964, it is reasonable to presume that that board did not find sufficient evidence at the time to warrant an upgrade to fully honorable, even when it had his records. Accordingly, absent evidence to the contrary, the Board finds that there is insufficient evidence to warrant further upgrade of his discharge.
4. The Board commends the applicant for his post-service accomplishments. However, they and his supporting statements are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant further upgrade when compared to the reasons for his discharge during such a short amount of service and the absence of the facts and circumstances that led to his discharge.
5. 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.
6. 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
___mvt __ ___jhl___ __rtd____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002073000 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/10/17 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1956/03/26 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR615-368 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | UNFIT |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 583 | 144.5000/A51.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017703
The military medical officer stated the applicant was undesirable as a Soldier. On 18 January 1956, the applicant's immediate commander requested a board of officers be convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Men - Discharge - Unfitness (Undesirable Habits or Traits of Character)) for the purpose of determining the applicant's fitness for retention. The board found him unfit for retention and recommended his discharge with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013335
While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicants failure to timely file. On 21 March 1955, the applicant's immediate commander requested a board of officers be convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Men - Discharge -...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020467
Based on the results of the psychiatric evaluation and his continued failure to adapt to military duty, on 11 February 1956, the applicant's immediate commander requested a board of officers be convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Men - Discharge - Unfitness (Undesirable Habits and Traits of Character)) to determine the applicant's fitness for retention. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019683
The FSM's complete military records are not available to the Board for review. On 12 February 2013, the ABCMR considered his petition for a discharge upgrade but found no evidence of error or injustice and denied his request. The regulation stated that discharge, if recommended, would be for unfitness, except that discharge because of unsuitability (under Army Regulation 615-369 (Enlisted Personnel - Discharge - Inaptitude or Unsuitability)), without referral to another board, might be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140005503
He returned to the Continental United States in March 1954. d. In September 1954, he was convicted by an SPCM for being AWOL from 12 June to 4 September 1954. e. In February 1955, he was convicted by an SPCM for being AWOL from 24 January to 16 February 1955. f. In March 1955, while in confinement, the FSMs commanding officer requested the FSM be required to appear before a board of officers convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Undesirable Habits or Traits of Character...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011746
The next day, the sergeant took him off the boxing team. His military records are not available to the Board for review. The regulation stated that discharge, if recommended, would be for unfitness, except that discharge because of unsuitability (under Army Regulation 615-369 (Enlisted Personnel - Discharge - Inaptitude or Unsuitability)), without referral to another board, might be recommended in borderline cases if military circumstances and the character of service rendered by the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070009864
That regulation provided for the discharge of individuals who had demonstrated their unfitness by giving evidence of undesirable habits and traits of character manifested by misconduct. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial and he NJP imposed against him on four separate occasions as a result of his acts of indiscipline. __Jeffrey C. Redmann__ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20070009864 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20071213 TYPE OF DISCHARGE DATE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008088
The applicant, the widow of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. There is no evidence the FSM applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083514C070212
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: 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | AR20050016538C070206
The applicant’s military records are not available to the Board for review. Meanwhile, the commander submitted a request to have the applicant appear before a board of officers to determine if he should be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 for unfitness due to undesirable habits or traits of character. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within...