| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyl | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he has received a full pardon from the Governor of Texas. He has been a model citizen for over 35 years. He indicates he wants to remove the stigma of a bad discharge from his name and allow him medical privileges.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
After serving on active duty from 5 September 1956 to 4 February 1959, he reenlisted for 6 years.
On 18 June 1959, he was convicted by a Special Court-Martial of driving a privately owned vehicle without an operator’s license, for stealing private property on 18 May 1959 and for being absent without leave on 18 May 1959. His sentence included confinement at hard labor (CHL) for 1 month and forfeiture of $50. The sentence to CHL was suspended for 6 months.
On 19 December 1959, he was apprehended by civil authorities in Dewey, Texas and charged with robbery.
On 19 February 1960, he was found guilty of robbery with firearms and sentenced to confinement in the State Penitentiary, Huntsville, Texas for a period of 5 to 12 years.
On 9 June 1960, the unit commander requested the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, based on his conviction by civil authorities and sentence of more than a year in confinement.
On 15 June 1960, the commander’s request was approved. It was directed that the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted pay grade and that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate (UDC).
On 23 June 1960, he was issued a UDC under the above-cited regulation. His records indicate he had a total of 3 years, 3 months and 23 days of creditable service and 178 days of lost time.
Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at that time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 33 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members convicted by civil authorities would be considered for separation. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.
Army Regulation 635-200, currently in effect, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14, establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, or absences without leave. Action will be take to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.
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 noted that the State of Texas has set aside the applicant’s conviction. This action, however, does not alter the fact that he was properly convicted at the time and discharged based on that conviction.
2. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.
3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
4. The applicant’s claim of model citizenship has been noted, however, it does not mitigate his undesirable service.
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
_INW___ _AAO___ _TL_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002073088 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020827 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068734C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to show he was discharged by reason of physical disability. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's available military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089219C070403
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. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9708317
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. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050014826C070206
On 17 June 1975, the applicant’s unit commander submitted a recommendation for the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of paragraph 33a of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations), by reason of civil conviction. The applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 21 December 1976 under the provision of section VI of Army Regulation 635-206, by reason of civil conviction. There is no evidence that the applicant applied for the Army Discharge Review Board for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005795C070205
On 8 August 1961, the applicant's commander recommended that the applicant be separated from the service, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, for his civil court conviction, with an UD. The applicant was discharged on 25 August 1961, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to his civil court conviction. Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606088C070209
On 29 September of that year he reenlisted for six years. On 28 January the applicant stated that he had been advised of his rights, that he had been advised that he had been recommended for separation from the Army without board action, and that such separation would probably result in an undesirable discharge. On 25 February 1963 the separation authority approved the recommendation, waived the requirement for a board of officers, and directed that the applicant receive an Undesirable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9708317C070209
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. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003552
On 23 February 1961, the applicant's immediate commander forwarded him a letter notifying him of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Misconduct (Fraudulent Entry, Conviction by Civil Court, and Absence Without Leave or Desertion)) by reason of conviction by a civil court, with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086882C070212
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. When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013754C071029
On 31 July 1978, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his 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 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3-year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)...