| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Ms. Melinda M. Darby | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Roger Able | Member | ||
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That the charges that brought about his discharge did not warrant an undesirable discharge. He provides no supporting evidence.
COUNSEL CONTENDS: Counsel makes no additional contention.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 January 1967. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13A (Field Artillery Basic).
Between August 1967 and June 1969, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on five occasions for absenting himself from his unit; going from his appointed place of duty; being absent without leave from 19 to on or about 22 November 1968; violating a lawful regulation by failing to stop for a posted sign and possessing no drivers license; and failing to go to his appointed place of duty, respectively.
On 2 November 1967, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of conspiring to steal approximately 201 cases of beer, property of the Fort Irwin, CA, Officers’ Open Mess. He was sentenced to be reduced to pay grade E-1 and to forfeit $27.00 pay for 3 months.
On 28 April 1968, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of sleeping on guard duty (while in Vietnam). He was sentenced to be reduced to pay grade E-1 and to forfeit $46.00 pay.
The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record, DA Form 20, item 44 shows that he served 38 days in civil confinement from 11 August – 17 September 1969. Item 42 shows that he was charged on 25 August 1969 with drunk and disorderly (fined $100 and $420), assault on a police officer (30 days), and possession of a dangerous drug (30 days).
The applicant’s discharge packet is not available.
On 8 October 1969, the applicant completed a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation.
On 16 January 1970, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness. He had completed 2 years, 10 months, and 13 days of creditable active service and had 41 days of lost time.
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, sexual perversion, drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit-forming drugs or marijuana, an established pattern for shirking, an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts or failure to contribute adequate support to dependents, were subject to separation for unfitness. Such action would be taken when it was clearly established that despite attempts to rehabilitate or develop him as a satisfactory soldier further effort was unlikely to succeed.
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 and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.
2. Although the discharge packet is not available, the applicant’s record of multiple and continuing incidents of misconduct clearly warranted the type of discharge given.
3. 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
__MMD__ __RA__ __CLG__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002075382 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/08/20 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1970/01/16 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-212 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A51.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076394C070215
On 26 November 1969, the applicant's commander formally recommended the applicant be separated for unfitness. His DD Form 214, item 22c shows he served in the U. S. Army Pacific (USARPAC) for 10 months and 7 days. That the applicant's DD Form 214, item 22c be corrected to show he served in USAREUR and USARPAC for 1 year, 2 months, and 10 days.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060436C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On or about 2 September 1968, the company commander initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness. On 21 November 1968, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051114C070420
The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 March 1967. The Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal is awarded to members who have served in Vietnam for 6 months during the period 1 March 1961 to 28 March 1973. The Board accepts that he was assigned to Vietnam from 28 March 1968 – 22 March 1969 (11 months and 25 days), the dates shown in his discharge packet.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058663C070421
On 21 August 1970, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness and directed that the applicant be furnished a general discharge. On 25 February 1974 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade to honorable. The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included four nonjudicial punishments, four special court-martial convictions and 640 days lost due...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011441
Counsel requests upgrade of the applicant's discharge to a general discharge under honorable conditions. On 20 January 1982, the ADRB considered the applicant's military records and all other available evidence. The evidence of record shows the applicant's period of prior honorable service is documented in his military records and, as he requests, he may use his 8 August 1967 DD Form 214 in support of his efforts to obtain veteran's benefits.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080002364
The applicant states, in effect, that he was accepted for induction by the Army who had full knowledge that he had a problem with alcohol. It appears that he was not provided counseling or treatment for his alcoholism while he was in the Army largely because he did not recognize he was an alcoholic and he did not know enough about alcoholism to ask for help. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by upgrading the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075787C070403
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded to include benefits. On 1 October 1968, he was discharged, with an undesirable discharge, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness. On 22 June 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), under the provisions of the Department of Defense Special Discharge Review Board (SDRP), upgraded the applicant’s discharge to a general discharge under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060017041C071029
A DD Form 616 (Report of Return of Absentee/Escaped Prisoner Sentenced to Discharge/and/or Request for All Personnel Records), dated 18 March 1969, indicates the applicant had been returned to military control in Wilmington, OH and was assigned or attached to the U. S. Army Special Processing Detachment, Fort Knox, KY (apparently because it was the nearest Army installation to Wilmington, OH). On 18 March 1971, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge characterized as under other than...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711669
On 3 June 1970, the commander notified the applicant that he was being considered for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability. 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. Considering the applicant’s conviction by one special and one summary court-martial plus his three Article 15s, acts of indiscipline covering more...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072150C070403
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: 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 limitations.