| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas A. Pagan | Member | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Lutz | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he does not believe his behavior was bad enough to warrant an undesirable discharge. He further states that he desires an upgrade because he does not have an income and is homeless.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in Detroit, Michigan, on 10 October 1972, for a period of 2 years and was transferred to Fort Knox, Kentucky, to undergo his basic combat training (BCT).
On 2 November 1972, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.
He completed his BCT and was transferred to Fort Lee, Virginia, to undergo training as a cook. He completed his training and was transferred to Germany on 4 April 1973.
On 5 October 1973, he was convicted by a special court-martial of failure to obey a lawful order from a commissioned officer, of disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer, of stealing $12.00 from another soldier by use of force and assaulting another soldier with intent to do bodily harm. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 140 days, reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and a forfeiture of pay. He was initially sent to the United States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, to serve his confinement and was subsequently transferred to Fort Knox on 29 January 1974 to serve the remainder of his confinement.
On 28 March 1974, NJP was imposed against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 2 March to 19 March 1974. His punishment consisted of an oral reprimand, a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.
On 4 June 1974, NJP was imposed against him for wrongfully appearing in a public place in an improper uniform and being disorderly. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay (suspended for 60 days).
On 13 September 1974, NJP was imposed against him for being AWOL from 31 August to 2 September 1974. His punishment consisted of a detention of pay for 3 months and restriction for 14 days.
On 6 November 1974, the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness, 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, disorderly conduct and abusive language towards superiors, his continual and deliberate shirking of his duties, his apathetic attitude and his failure to respond to numerous counseling sessions and rehabilitation efforts by the command.
After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his right to appear before a board of officers and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
The appropriate authority ( a major general) approved the recommendation for discharge on 12 February 1975 and directed that the applicant be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
The applicant again went AWOL from 21 February 1975 and was discharged in absentia on 5 March 1975, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness, due to frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities. He had served 1 year, 11 months and 29 days of total active service and had 148 days of lost time due to AWOL and imprisonment.
He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 6 June 1977, for an upgrade of his discharge. He contended at that time that he was discharged unjustly because his commanders were prejudiced against him. He was granted a personal appearance before the ADRB traveling panel in Detroit, Michigan, on 8 November 1978 and failed to appear. On 29 March 1979, the ADRB conducted a records only review of his discharge and determined that his separation was equitable and proper and that no basis for relief existed. His request was denied on 9 April 1979.
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 unfitness, 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 unfitness when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was then and currently is 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. 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
__kak___ ___tap___ __bjl____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002075118 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/10/29 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1975/03/05 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/CH10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | UNFIT |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 583 | 144.5000/A51.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061667C070421
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. The punishment imposed is not present in the available records.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060104C070421
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. On 9 September 1974, he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050008804C070206
On 30 November 1972, while serving in the pay grade of E-4, he reenlisted for a period of 3 years and assignment to Fort Meade, Maryland. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100468C070208
On 9 July 1975, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request for an honorable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. However, the separation authority determined that there was no "agreement" and that the undesirable discharge was appropriate and correct.
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 | CY2002 | 2002069648C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
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 | 2003086066C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that his discharge should be upgraded because he was accepted under lowered enlistment standards and he was diagnosed with an immature personality, passive aggressive type – chronic. After hearing testimony and reviewing the evidence of record, the ADRB again determined that the applicant was properly discharged and that there was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072164C070403
APPLICANT STATES : That he was informed at his court-martial that his discharge would be upgraded after a certain number of years and it has not been done. On 21 August 1969, NJP was imposed against him for failure to obey a lawful order from the battalion commander and for failure to go to his place of duty. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019762
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 February 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100019762 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On an unknown date, the applicant's chain of command recommended the applicant be discharged by reason of unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability), then in effect. On 10 March 1976, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206...