| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Rosa M. Chandler | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. James E. Anderholm | Member | |
| Ms. Charmane Collins | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his Undesirable Discharge (UD) be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: That he served honorably for more than 3 years; that he received a court-martial and he was discharged for what he believes to have been a minor offense, specifically "being in an area that was off limits;" that he did not understand the court-martial proceedings; that he was unable to assist or defend himself due to the lack of knowledge of the English language. He adds that he has been trying to get his discharge upgraded since 1951, but without success.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
That prior to the period of service under review, he served honorably in the Regular Army (RA) from 20 March 1946 to 5 December 1946. On 6 December 1946, he reenlisted in the RA for 3 years. On 17 February 1947, he was assigned to Company M, 65th Infantry Regiment, Puerto Rico.
On 19 September 1947, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of striking a military police noncommissioned officer (NCO) in the face while the NCO was in the performance of his duties, and of willfully disobeying a lawful order of an NCO on 14 August 1947. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and forfeiture of $35.00 pay per month for 6 months.
On 25 April 1948, the applicant was assigned to Fort Clayton, Canal Zone. On 31 July 1948, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of appearing in Panama City, Republic of Panama, without the proper written authority and in improper attire (civilian clothing). He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 10 days and forfeiture of $30.00 pay.
On 8 July 1949, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being in an off limits area. His punishment included confinement at hard labor for 7 days. The NJP proceedings are no longer contained in the available record.
On an unknown date, while assigned to Fort Clayton, the applicant was notified that a board of officers would meet on 8 September 1949 to determine whether he should be separated from the Army prior to the expiration of his term of service under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 615-368 for unfitness or unsuitability.
On 8 September 1949, the applicant appeared before a board of officers with counsel. After reviewing the applicant's service record and hearing testimony from his chain of command, the board recommended that the applicant be
separated for unfitness and unsuitability under the provisions of AR 615-368. On 17 October 1949, the approving authority accepted the recommendation and directed that the applicant receive a UD.
On 26 October 1949, the applicant was separated with a UD under the provisions of AR 615-368 for unfitness and unsuitability. He had completed 2 years, 10 months, and 20 days of creditable active Federal service on the enlistment under review and he had lost time due to being in confinement. The applicant had also completed 8 months and 16 days of prior honorable service.
On 23 August 1965, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge after a records review. On 27 April 1982, the ADRB again denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge after he personally appeared before that board.
AR 615-368, in effect at the time set forth the basic policy and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel. The regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of individuals determined to be unfit for further service by reason of habits or traits of character manifested by misconduct. Under this regulation a UD was 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, which would have jeopardized his rights. The type of discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.
3. The applicant has provided no evidence to indicate that the English language was an obstacle for him during the period in which he served. If language was a barrier, it was his responsibility to bring it to the attention of his chain of command prior to the separation process and to the attention of his legal representative during the separation process.
4. 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___ __jea___ ___cc___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002074235 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021203 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19491026 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR615-368 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A51.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.5000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002085638C070215
The regulation states that an individual separated under this regulation will be furnished an honorable or general discharge. The Board considered the applicant's request to change his discharge to Army Regulation 615-365 or Army Regulation 615-360. The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that the reason and authority for separation issued to him was in error or unjust.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01954
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge directives in effect at the time of his discharge. Upon review of the findings, they find the Board of Officers did not direct a specific characterization of discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063615C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He had completed 1 year, 9 months, and 12 days of active military service. 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 | CY2008 | 20080009455
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The evidence of record confirms that both the FSM and his mother provided the recruiter a copy of the FSMs Certificate of Baptism to confirm that he was at least 17 years of age at the time of his 1 December 1947 enlistment in the Army, as evidenced by the 29 November 1947 notarized affidavit on file. In addition, the FSM was found to be mentally and physically fit for military service by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009796
On 11 August 1949, the applicant appeared before a board of officers to determine if he should be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 for unfitness, repeated contraction of a venereal disease. His WD AGO Form 53-59 shows he was discharged from active duty on 3 November 1949, under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368, by reason of unfitness - unclean habits including repeated venereal disease with an undesirable discharge. On 13 June 1956, he was discharged from...
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 | CY2002 | 2002073424C070403
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. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003453C070205
Army Regulation 615-368, also stated, in pertinent part, that a board of officers would recommend that the individual be either discharged because of unfitness, unsuitability, or retained in the service. It is also noted that the applicant now states he began drinking at the age of 12 and that alcohol was a large part of his life; however, his record of service shows that he served honorably and without any alcohol related incidents during the period 14 April 1948 to 13 April 1951. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088150C070403
This version of the regulation that came into effect 1 July 1947, the month after the applicant’s discharge, did authorize the issue of either a GD or UD for separation for unfitness (undesirable habits or traits of character). The Board notes the applicant’s contention that in order to be fair, the Board must grant him an honorable discharge based on the facts of his case being similar to case which resulted in the Board recommending an upgrade of a UD to a GD. However, the Board further...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000936C070205
The available records indicate that the applicant was approved for a waiver of lost time on 31 March 1948, to enlist in the Army. Army Regulation 615-364, then in effect, set forth the conditions under which enlisted personnel could be discharged with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge. Title 10, United Stated Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, provides, in pertinent part, that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records is not empowered to set aside...