| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was advised that his discharge would be upgraded to honorable after 5 years had elapsed.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in Chicago, Illinois, with a moral waiver on 30 April 1964, at 20 years of age, for a period of 3 years, training as an artillery cannoneer, and assignment to Europe. He completed his basic combat training at Fort Knox, Kentucky, and his advanced individual training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.
He was advanced to the pay grade of E-2 on 30 August 1964 and was transferred to Germany on 18 September 1964, where he was assigned to an artillery battery in Gemunden, Germany.
On 6 December 1964, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for being absent from his place of duty on 5 December 1964. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.
On 16 January 1965, he was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 8 January to 9 January 1965 and for disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 1 month, reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and a forfeiture of $55.00.
On 11 February 1965, the applicant commander initiated a recommendation to bar the applicant from reenlistment. He cited as the basis for his recommendation, the applicant’s disciplinary record, his record of habitual misconduct, as evidenced by his rebellion to any form of authority, unsatisfactory performance of duty, sloppiness of dress, speech and mind. He further indicated that the applicant had only been assigned to the unit for a month and had personally indicated that he desired to be separated from the Army. Accordingly, he concurred with his wishes and initiated separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209.
The applicant acknowledged the commander’s actions and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. Accordingly, the appropriate authority approved the bar to reenlistment.
The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records. However, his records do contain a duly constituted report of separation (DD Form 214) signed by the applicant, which shows that he was discharged under honorable conditions at Fort Hamilton, New York, on 12 March 1965, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, for unsuitability. He had served 10 months and 12 days of total active service and had I day of lost time due to AWOL.
There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge.
Army Regulation 635-209, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel by reason of unsuitability when it was determined that it was unlikely that an individual would develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a satisfactory soldier. An honorable or general discharge was authorized. There has never been any provisions for an automatic upgrade of such a discharge and there is no evidence in the available records to suggest that the applicant was informed that such a provision existed.
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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations with no violations of any of the applicant’s rights.
2. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.
3. The applicant’s contentions have been considered by the Board. However, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to his overall record of undistinguished service during such a short period of 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
___fe ___ ___le____ __tl_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002075659 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/11/21 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1965/03/12 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-209/UNSUIT |
| DISCHARGE REASON | UNSUIT |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 730 | 144.7800/A78.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004103159C070208
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 8 June 1965, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, with a GD, in pay grade E-1. The type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge are appropriate considering the facts of the case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071354C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 14 September 1965, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209. 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 | CY2011 | 20110023464
On 24 April 1965, the applicant's company commander recommended he be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unsuitability). The evidence of record shows the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability was administratively correct, all requirements of law and regulations were met, the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process, and the applicant was...
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 | CY2003 | 2003084674C070212
On 22 October 1964, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for failure to maintain his personal clothing. He applied to this Board and on 11 December 1968, this Board also denied his appeal. That the Department issue to him an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 24 November 1965, in lieu of the general discharge of the same date held by him.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110007972
On 10 December 1964, the applicant's commander initiated a request to discharge the applicant for unsuitability under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 (Personnel Separations Discharge Unsuitability). He was diagnosed with a character and behavior disorder by a military psychiatrist and he was discharged for unsuitability due to a character and behavior disorder with a general discharge. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709612
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080003860
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001055263C070420
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION : A Memorandum of Consideration is not available to reflect the basis for the denial of the applicant’s case on 19 May 1965. The psychiatrist recommended that the applicant be separated from the service under the appropriate administrative regulation. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001055263SUFFIXRECON19650519DATE BOARDED20010809TYPE OF DISCHARGE(GD) Army Discharge Review Board upgraded the applicant’s...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008767
On 8 April 1965, the applicant stated he had been counseled and advised of the basis for his separation. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), currently in effect, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. There is no evidence of record showing the applicant suffered from an alcohol addiction or that such addiction was the proximate cause of his repeated AWOL, misconduct, and...