| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Ms. Jennifer L. Prater | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Mr. James E. Anderholm | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to honorable. Further, that his 435 days of lost time be restored.
APPLICANT STATES: That he has health related issues that deal directly with time in service and he is seeking the ability to have his medical needs taken care of.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
During the period 13 February to 1 March 1973, he was a member of the Army Reserve Delayed Enlistment Program.
On 2 March 1973, he enlisted in the Regular Army. He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 52B (Power Generator Equipment Operator).
On 23 March 1973, he was administered nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being disrespectful to a superior noncommissioned officer on 19 March 1973. His punishment included a forfeiture of $31 pay, extra duty and restriction.
He was advanced to pay grade E-3, effective 3 October 1973.
During the period 10 to 27 February 1974, he was absent without leave (AWOL).
During the period 1 March 1974 to 14 January 1975, he was AWOL.
On 8 March 1974, his unit commander preferred court-martial charges against him for being AWOL from 1 March 1974 until a date to be determined; however, he was in an AWOL status and could not be presented with the charges.
On 2 December 1974, he was sentenced in the Circuit Court for the County of Lunenburg, Lunenburg, Virginia on a conviction for a felony, to wit: Robbery. He was in the Lunenburg County Jail pending transfer to a Virginia State Penitentiary to complete a 10-year sentence.
On 20 February 1975, the unit commander advised the applicant that he was being considered for separation from the Army under Army Regulation 635-206, based on his conviction by civil authorities. He was advised of his rights.
On 20 February 1975, the unit commander requested the Sheriff of Lunenburg, Virginia assist in obtaining a medical examination for the applicant. The Sheriff responded that medical facilities were not available. He also requested the commander send the applicant’s personal items to the Lunenburg Jail.
On 24 February 1975, the applicant indicated he had been afforded the opportunity to consult with appointed counsel, or military counsel of his own choice and he declined the opportunity. He waived consideration of and personal appearance before a board of officers, elected not to submit statements in his own behalf and waived representation. Further, he indicated he had not appealed his conviction in civil court and did not intend to appeal.
On 20 March 1975, the commander recommended the applicant’s discharge under Army Regulation 635-206.
On 14 April 1975, the appropriate separation authority approved the discharge and directed reduction to the lowest enlisted grade and that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
On 21 April 1975, the applicant was discharged, with a UD, under the above-cited regulation. His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) indicates he had 11 months and 5 days of creditable service and 435 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 applicant’s indication of health issues is not supported since he failed to provide any documentation in support of his request. He is not entitled to upgrade of his discharge or restoration of his lost time.
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. 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
__MHM___ _JAE___ _JLP___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002073963 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021008 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006253
The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 7 May 1975, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge and a characterization of service of under conditions other than honorable under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 after completing 3 years and 2 days of active service with 521 days of lost time under Title 10, U.S. Code, section 972. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040009110C070208
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 August 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20040009110 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. James B. Gunlicks | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that, on 2 October 1974, he was discharged with...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086974C070212
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. He states that the military again came for him. The applicant’s contention that he was young, and did not fully understand the basis for his separation, is not supported by any evidence submitted by him, or contained in records available to the Board.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084226C070212
On 12 April 1976, the applicant's commander submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to conviction by civil authorities. Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, for misconduct – conviction by civil authorities. There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100000584
On 16 November 1978, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. His service was not consistent with Army standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608077C070209
On 5 March 1974 the applicants commanding officer recommended that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 because of his civil conviction. The applicant was discharged at Fort Gordon on 28 March 1974. The requirement for a board of officers could be waived by the separation authority provided the individual concerned was physically in civil custody at the time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003414C070206
Carol Kornhoff | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 7 June 1974, the separation authority approved the recommendation of the board of officers that the applicant be discharged from the service because of conviction by a civil court under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 with issuance of an undesirable discharge. He completed 1 year, 1 month and 12 days active military service with 1,000 days of lost...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140020587
The applicant requests an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge (i.e., under other than honorable conditions discharge). The board found the applicant was undesirable for further retention in the military service because of his conviction by civil court and recommended his discharge from the service with an undesirable discharge. Accordingly, a board of officers convened and found the applicant was undesirable for further retention in the military service because of his conviction by civil...
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 | CY2005 | AR20050014849C070206
He also states that he told his commander that all he wanted was to get treatment and carry on with his duties but his commander did not want to hear that. He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 21 July 1977 for an upgrade of his discharge and contended at that time that it was unjust for the Army to discharge him for a civilian offense, because he was serving time for that offense at that time. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge...