| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to general.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his parents died when he was young and he was raised by abusive relatives. He dropped out of high school and joined the Army hoping for a better life. He described his troubles in the Army and indicates that he had no way of knowing that his life in the Army would be no different than the life he had just left. He also described his life after the Army which included four failed marriages and two serious accidents (vehicle and motorcycle). He contends that he was young, uneducated and very unaware that Army life was no different than the life he came from, at least in his mind. In support of his application, he submits a letter of explanation.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted on 28 February 1969 for a period of 3 years. While in basic combat training, on 2 April 1969, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 31 March 1969 to 1 April 1969. His punishment consisted of restriction and extra duty.
On 4 August 1969, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 18 May 1969 to 7 July 1969. He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 4 months and to forfeit $82 per month for 4 months. On 4 August 1969, the convening authority approved the sentence. On
16 September 1969, the unexecuted portion of the sentence to forfeiture of pay was suspended until 30 October 1969. On 23 October 1969, the unexecuted portion of the sentence to confinement was remitted.
The applicant was arrested by civil authorities on 5 February 1970 for burglary. On 18 March 1970, the applicant pled guilty, was convicted of burglary and sentenced to one year of confinement.
On 26 January 1971, the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, for conviction by civil court. The applicant waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived representation by appointed counsel and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 7 April 1971, the applicant’s unit commander initiated action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for civil conviction. He based his recommendation for separation on the applicant’s civil conviction for burglary on 18 March 1970.
The intermediate commander recommended that the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for civil conviction and that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
The separation authority approved the recommendation on 16 April 1971 and directed that the applicant be issued an undesirable discharge.
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 5 May 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for misconduct due to being convicted by a civil court during his current term of active military service. He had served 9 months and 28 days of total active service with
49 days lost due to AWOL and confinement.
There is no indication in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at that time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for misconduct. Section VI of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel for conviction by civil court. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.
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 considered the applicant’s contentions that he was young and uneducated with many personal problems. However, these matters are not grounds for upgrading a discharge.
2. The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included one nonjudicial punishment, one special court-martial conviction and 49 days lost time and determined that the quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. The Board also determined that his military record was not satisfactory. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge or a general discharge.
3. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation are appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
4. The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record that the actions taken in his case were in error or unjust.
5. 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.
6. 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
FNE____ LE_____ TL______ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002075790 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021121 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19710505 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-206 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Misconduct due to being convicted by a civil court during his current term of active military service. |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0200 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006720
On 18 January 1971, the applicant's commander initiated action to discharge the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 due to conviction by civil authorities. Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 16 July 1971, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to conviction by civil authorities. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021196
In item 5 (I Request the Following Error or Injustice in the Record be Corrected) of his application, the applicant states, "Yes." His immediate commander initiated separation action against him under Army Regulation 635-206 for his civil conviction. The evidence of record shows the applicant was convicted by a civilian court of burglary and he was sentenced to confinement.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040006868C070208
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general, honorable or medical discharge. Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at that time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for conviction by civil court. Evidence of record shows that during the applicant's military service he received one special court-martial, was confined by military and civilian authorities, was charged and convicted of second degree burglary, and of violating...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018669
The equivalent crimes and their maximum punishment under the Table of Maximum Punishments of The Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (Revised edition) provided the following: Article 129, Burglary - dishonorable discharge, reduction to lowest enlisted grade, a forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and 10 years of confinement; 12. The evidence shows that the applicant twice accepted NJP under Article 15 of the UCMJ, and that he was absent in desertion when he was convicted by a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017907
His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows that on 15 April 1971, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations Discharge Misconduct (Fraudulent Entry, Conviction by Civil Court, AWOL, Desertion), based on his conviction by a civil court during his current term of active military service. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010569C070208
He states, that he was already worried about his family’s welfare, when his mother wrote to say that her lights and water was turned off. On 16 June 1972, the separation authority directed that he be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, by reason of misconduct (civil conviction), and directed that the applicant receive an undesirable discharge. On 4 October 1976, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004253C070205
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 21 June 1972 with an undesirable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for conviction by civil court. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant a general discharge or an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140020587
The applicant requests an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge (i.e., under other than honorable conditions discharge). The board found the applicant was undesirable for further retention in the military service because of his conviction by civil court and recommended his discharge from the service with an undesirable discharge. Accordingly, a board of officers convened and found the applicant was undesirable for further retention in the military service because of his conviction by civil...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100000071
On 3 July 1973, the Staff Judge Advocate, after reviewing the applicant's separation action, concluded that the requirements of Army Regulation 635-206 had been met and the information contained warranted separation with an undesirable discharge. On 3 July 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to a civil conviction, and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 11 July 1973, the...
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...