| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Carolyn Wade | Analyst |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was ashamed of his discharge and did not believe he could get it upgraded. Now with his uncle's encouragement, he is requesting an upgrade of his discharge based upon his being a good citizen for the last 47 years.
In support of his application, the applicant submitted a copy of his DD Form 214, a copy of his discharge certificate, a copy of DD Form 293 (Application for Review of Discharge or Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States); and three letters of character reference.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years on 30 September 1952.
On 16 December 1952, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 3 to 26 November. He was sentenced to hard labor without confinement for 3 months and forfeiture of $41.00 pay per month for 3 months. The sentence was approved on 16 December 1952.
On 6 May 1953, the applicant was convicted by summary court-martial of being AWOL from 9 to 15 April 1953. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 15 days (suspended) and forfeiture of $10.00 pay per month for 1 month. The sentence was approved on 6 May 1953.
On 8 July 1953, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 25 May 1953 to 19 June 1953. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 2 months and forfeiture of $55.00 pay per month for 2 months. The sentenced was approved on 8 July 1953.
On 24 September 1954, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being insubordinate toward a noncommissioned officer (NCO). His punishment consisted of extra duty for 2 hours per night for 2 weeks.
On 9 February 1955, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being disrespectful towards a superior officer. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 4 months and forfeiture of $60.00 pay per month for 4 months. The sentenced was approved on 17 February 1955.
On 15 March 1955, the unit commander stated that the applicant had never shown the qualities desired of a soldier and recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 615-368 by reason of unfitness.
On 17 March 1955, a psychiatrist evaluated the applicant and determined after careful examination, that the applicant had a passive aggressive reaction that was chronic moderate, and manifested by frequent AWOL's, stubbornness, inefficiency, insubordination, and argumentativeness. The personality disorder was found to have existed prior to service. The psychiatrist recommended the applicant be discharged from the service under the provisions of AR 615-368 for unfitness due to misconduct.
On 4 April 1955, a board of officers convened at Post Headquarters, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. The applicant appeared before the board with counsel. The applicant was afforded the opportunity to cross-examine adverse witnesses, to present evidence in his own behalf, to testify in person or submit a written statement, and to submit a brief.
On 5 April 1955, the board of officers found that the applicant was unfit for further service and recommended that he be discharged from the service because of unfitness due to chronic petty offenses and misconduct.
On 18 April 1955, the appropriate authority approved the Board findings for discharge under the provisions of AR 615-368 with a UD. Accordingly, on 17 May 1955, the applicant was discharged from the service with a UD. He was credited with 2 years and 17 days of creditable military service.
Army Regulation 615-368, in effect at the time, provided the authority for discharging enlisted personnel for unfitness. Separation action was to be taken when the commander determined that the best interest of the service would be served by eliminating the individual concerned. A UD 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 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 that would tend to jeopardize his rights.
3. The applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.
4. The Board acknowledges the length of time since the applicant's discharge, his successful transition to civilian life, and the character references noting his accomplishments since discharge. However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the Board found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.
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
__clg___ __rks___ __dph___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002073424 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021031 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19550517 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 615-368 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A51.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.9405 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008071
On 15 July 1954, his 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 DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 with an undesirable discharge. The regulation stated that discharge, if recommended, would be for unfitness,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070004115
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 9 August 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070004115 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 records available to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records were provided in part by the applicant and from reconstructed records. On 14 August 1953, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001307
On 28 June 1953, the FSM's unit recommended a board of officers be convened to determine whether the FSM should be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Personnel - Discharge - Unfitness). The certificate, dated 12 June 1953, issued by the Psychiatry and Neurology Service, USAH, Camp Atterbury, essentially stated: * the FSM's diagnosis was anti-social personality manifested by immaturity, impulsive behavior, lack of adequate standards of behavior, and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001542
Should the command deem his performance to be useless to the service the applicant was to be separated from the military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Personnel - Discharge - Unfitness), by reason of unfitness. The applicant was credited with 1 year, 7 months, and 10 days of active military service. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016650
The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The applicants military record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army in pay grade E-1 on 20 February 1951, for 3 years. However, his records contain a copy of his DD Form 214 which shows he was discharged on 23 September 1955 in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368, with an undesirable discharge.
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 | CY2004 | 2004103833C070208
The applicant requests that the undesirable discharge of her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM) be upgraded to honorable. The attending psychiatrist opined that the FSM was showing a chronic form of psychosis and as such he was not responsible for his conduct. The available records fail to show that this Board ever received or considered the FSM’s application for correction of military records dated 19 September 2002.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062655C070421
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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant has not presented and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020330
The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous application for upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general under honorable conditions discharge. Special Court-Martial Order Number 51, issued by Headquarters, 7th Armored Division Artillery, dated 21 July 1952, shows he was found guilty of being AWOL from on or about 23 June 1952 to on or about 14 July 1952. The evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067351C070402
The applicant states, in effect, that he was a young, 17-year old when he enlisted; that he served well in combat during the Korean War and received a head wound; that, upon reassignment from Korea to Japan, his personality changed and he started exhibiting bizarre behavior; and that, when he finally returned to the United States at 2 1/2 years of service and was given his first home leave, he went AWOL (absent without leave) for 5 or 6 months. Once the Department of the Air Force has...