| 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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: That he has led a clean life since his discharge, that he has held down a job and has no felonies.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in Seattle, Washington, on 28 October 1975, for a period of 4 years and training as a wheeled vehicle mechanic. He successfully completed his training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and was transferred to Fort Hood, Texas, on 15 March 1976. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-2 on 16 March 1976.
The applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) on 2 June 1976. He was apprehended by civil authorities in Baker, Oregon, on 4 June 1976. He was confined by civil authorities and was returned to military control at Fort Hood on 9 June 1976. The record is silent as to any punishment imposed for that offense.
On 6 August 1976, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for being AWOL from 19 July to 27 July 1976. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and a forfeiture of pay.
The applicant again went AWOL from 6 July to 10 July 1977. NJP was imposed against him for the AWOL offense and his punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2 and a forfeiture of pay.
On 14 July 1977, NJP was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.
He again went AWOL from 27 September to 28 September 1977. The record is silent as to any punishment imposed for that offense as well.
On 14 October 1977, he underwent a mental status evaluation and was deemed to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.
On 3 November 1977, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for misconduct due to his frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities. He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s disciplinary record, his failure to respond to numerous counseling sessions, and indicated that the applicant was a disciplinary problem. He further stated that unless he is under close supervision, he shirks his duties and is a bad influence on other soldiers due to his un-military attitude and undermines the discipline of the unit. He has a slovenly and dirty appearance and refuses to rectify the matter within command guidance. The commander included counseling statements indicating that the applicant had been counseled on numerous occasions for being absent from his place of duty and being disrespectful towards superiors.
After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
The appropriate authority (a major general) approved the recommendation on 6 December 1977 and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions.
Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 29 December 1977, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for misconduct, based on his frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities. He had served 2 years, 1 month and 5 days of total active service and had 18 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement by civil authorities.
There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 established the policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for various types of misconduct that included frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. It provided that action would be taken 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 was normally considered appropriate and there have never been any automatic provisions for upgrading such discharges.
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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.
3. The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board. However, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to the frequency of his misconduct and his overall record of undistinguished service.
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
___mvt__ ___jhl ___ ___rtd___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002074695 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/10/17 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1977/12/29 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/CH13 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | MISCONDUCT |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 626 | 144.6000/A60.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120000679
BOARD DATE: 12 June 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120000679 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. There is no evidence in the available records to show the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066379C070402
On 6 November 1978, the separation authority approved the board of officers recommendation and directed that the applicant be discharged from the service for misconduct due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with a general discharge. In accordance with a recommendation from a board of officers, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct. The Board reviewed the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072151C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 5 February 1977, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080332C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 26 January 1976, the applicant's commander advised the applicant of his rights and preferred charges against him for the AWOL offense. There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606005C070209
On 18 January 1978, the applicants commander officially recommended that the applicant be discharged under paragraph 13-5, Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature; He indicated that the applicants conduct and efficiency were unsatisfactory; that the applicant was sent to the USARB for the purpose of receiving correctional training and treatment necessary to return him to duty as a well-trained soldier with improved attitude and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090241C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. This program, known as the DOD Discharge Review Program (Special) (SDRP) required, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, that a discharge upgrade to either honorable or general be issued in the case of any individual who had either completed a normal tour of duty in Southeast Asia, been wounded in action, been awarded a military decoration other than a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088346C070403
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) should commence on the date of final action by the ADRB. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 3 November 1977...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070476C070402
APPLICANT STATES : That the reason he was given a discharge under other than honorable conditions was so that it could be upgraded 6 months after his discharge. On 11 June 1979, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, due to his involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities. The applicant has failed to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021523
While the applicant claims he has honorably served in civilian life since his discharge, that in itself is not mitigating on the period of service in question or the misconduct which served as the basis for upgrading his under other than honorable conditions discharge. _________x______________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130001723
The applicant did not provide any evidence. This regulation prescribed that an undesirable discharge was normally issued unless the particular circumstances warranted an honorable or a general discharge. _______ _ ___X____ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.