| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin | Member | ||
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he had no judicial acts against him while he was in the service. He indicates that when he was discharged he asked the processing sergeant what under honorable conditions meant and he was told that it would change after 30 days. He indicates that he believed he was being separated under a farmer’s discharge. His unit commander had told him that if a soldier serving in Germany had less than 30 days to go, he could be separated early if you lived on a farm because it was planting season.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 12 July 1960, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training at Fort Lewis, Washington, and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 140.00 (Field Artilleryman).
The applicant’s Service Record (DA Form 24) confirms that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was corporal/E-4 (CPL/E-4). However, Section I (Appointments, Promotions, or Reductions) also shows that he was reduced as indicated on the dates listed: from private first class/E-3 (PFC/E-3) to private/E-2 (PVT/E-2) on 19 July 1961, from CPL/E-4 to PFC/E-3 on 1 July 1962, and from PFC/E-3 to PVT/E-2 on 5 June 1963.
The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition. However, it does contain an extensive disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on seven separate occasions.
On 19 March 1963, the applicant’s unit commander prepared a Certificate that certified that the applicant’s attitude, performance of duty, and dependability were so lacking that it required an excessive amount of personal supervision since he had been a member of the unit. The unit commander confirmed that the applicant’s conduct and efficiency ratings were unsatisfactory.
On 20 March 1963, the applicant’s unit commander prepared a Personnel Action (DA Form 1049), Subject: Barring Enlistment of Substandard Personnel, pertaining to the applicant. He proposed that the applicant be identified as substandard under the provisions of paragraph 8c, Army Regulation 635-200, based on the reasons outlined in his 19 March 1963 Certificate. The DA Form 1049 contained a statement indicating that he would be barred from reenlisting in the Army, and would be given a GD at the termination of his enlistment. The applicant signed a statement confirming that he read and understood the allegations made and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 5 April 1963, the Barring Enlistment of Substandard Personnel action was approved by the appropriate authority. The approval endorsement indicated that an entry that the applicant was not recommended for further service would be made in his service record.
On 29 June 1963, the applicant was released from active duty under the provisions of paragraph 7, Army Regulation 635-205, by reason of Early Release of Overseas Returnee, and he was issued a GD based on his previously approved bar to reenlistment.
On 5 November 1975, the Army Discharge Review Board determined that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable and it voted to deny the applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The version in effect at the time of the applicant’s discharge provided for issuing a GD to substandard personnel at the completion of their term of 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:
1. The Board notes the applicant’s contentions that he was told that his discharge would be changed in 30 days, that he was released early because he lived on a farm, and that based on these factors his GD should be upgraded to an HD. However, it finds insufficient evidence to support these claims.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was barred from reenlistment and identified as substandard prior to his separation. In accordance with the regulations in effect at the time, members declared substandard and who were barred from reenlistment received a GD at the completion of their term of service. The applicant signed a statement acknowledging that he understood these facts at the time the bar to reenlistment was imposed. Therefore, the Board concludes that the applicant was or should have been aware of the basis for his receiving a GD.
3. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, the Board finds that the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects the overall quality of his service and that an upgrade to his discharge is not warranted at this time.
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
__AAO__ __KWL__ __DPH__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002075595 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/09/24 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1963/06/29 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-205 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Early Release-Overseas Returnee |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050008143
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 31 January 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050008143 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 applicant’s records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army for three years and entered active duty on 27 July 1961. On 26 June 1964, the applicant’s unit commander recommended the applicant be barred from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086831C070212
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. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050015484C070206
He states he was never given a reason for being denied his reenlistment and had intended to serve in the Army for 30 years. It would not have been recorded on his 1963 separation document. The evidence clearly shows that the applicant was not assigned overseas at the time of his 1963 discharge and as such his separation document should not have reflected paragraph 7, of Army Regulation 635-205 or early separation of overseas returnees as the reason and authority of his separation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012447
On 17 March 1964, the applicant's unit commander recommended the applicant be barred from reenlistment under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (General Provisions of Discharge and Release of Enlisted Personnel). His record contains a DD Form 214 which shows he was discharged in pay grade E-2 on 23 April 1964, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-205 (Discharge and Release for Convenience of the Government of Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 7, by reason of early release of...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050008367
The separation document (DD Form 214) he was issued upon his separation shows he completed a total of 5 years of active military service. The applicant contention that the date of his separation entered on his DD Form 214, 31 July 1964, is in error and that the effective date of his separation was actually 9 August 1964, and the supporting statement he submitted were carefully considered. The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant upon his separation confirms he was released from active duty...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078566C070215
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: The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s acts of misconduct, lack of motivation, inadaptability, and absence of interest resulted in him being barred from reenlistment.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003329C070206
The applicant requests that his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge to honorable. The facts and circumstance concerning the applicant’s discharge are not in the available records, however on 18 March 1963, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-205 (Early Release Overseas Returnee), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The applicant was not a member of the Inactive Reserve at the time of his discharge and separated in 1963, prior to the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069235C070402
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that at the time of his discharge from the Army he held the rank and pay grade of SP4/E-4 and not private/E-2 (PVT/E-2). In support of his application, he submits a certification from his unit commander and a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214). The evidence of record confirms that during his separation processing the applicant authenticated his DD Form 214, which listed his rank and pay grade as PVT/E-2, thereby verifying the information contained therein.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004101982C070208
Patrick H. McGann Jr. | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests, in effect, that the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM), Heavy Weapons Infantry Badge, and Berlin Crisis award be added to his record. However, although he completed a qualifying period to be eligible for the first award of the AGCM, his record confirms he received less than excellent conduct and efficiency ratings while serving in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005554
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 17 January 1963, the applicant was released from active duty with a GD, in the rank of PFC, after completing 2 years, 11 months, and 19 days of active military service. The separation authority could issue either an HD or GD based on the member's overall record of service.