| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Eric N. Andersen | Member | ||
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that her undesirable discharge (UD) be changed to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that to the best of her knowledge, at the time of her discharge, she was never advised that she could contest the character of her discharge. She claims that she was unaware that she could have remained in the service and make amends for her errors and make-up her absent without leave (AWOL) time. She claims that had she been aware of these options, she would have remained on active duty and served honorably. She states that she has led a decent and productive life subsequent to her discharge. In support of her application, she submits two character reference letters.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 26 February 1971, the applicant entered the Army for a period of 3 years. The highest rank she attained during her active duty tenure was private/E-2 (PV2), and her record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.
The applicant’s record shows that she completed basic training and attended advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 71H (Personnel Management Specialist). While attending AIT, she accepted non-judicical punishment (NJP) on 22 July 1971, for failure to report to her appointed place of duty. In addition, she was AWOL from 2 through 20 August 1971.
On 24 August 1971, the applicant’s unit commander notified her that a separation action was being initiated to eliminate her from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness. The commander stated that the basis for the separation action was the applicant’s refusal to attend any service school. The unit commander further stated that the applicant exhibited an extreme lack of interest and could not expend effort constructively. Finally, the unit commander indicated that the applicant had absolutely no motivation for service in the Army.
The applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation action notification and consulted legal counsel. Legal counsel advised her of the basis for the contemplated separation, the effects of an UD, and of the rights available to her. Subsequent to this counseling, the applicant completed her election of rights by waiving consideration of her case by a board of officers, personal appearance before a board of officers, and the right to consulting counsel. In addition, she elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.
On 31 August 1971, the separation action was approved by the appropriate authority. On 10 September 1971, the applicant was discharged from the Army with an UD. At the time of her discharge she had completed a total of 5 months and 26 days of creditable active military service, and she had accrued 19 days of time lost due to AWOL.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within its 15-year statue of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel who were found unfit or unsuitable for further military service. 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 unfitness. An UD was 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 Board notes the applicant’s contentions and while it wishes to congratulate her on her excellent post service conduct and good citizenship, it finds these factors alone are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.
2. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations in effect at the time. In the opinion of the Board, based on the applicant’s misconduct and poor duty performance, the discharge she received was appropriate and accurately reflects her overall record of service.
3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case, and 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.
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
__MHM__ __ENA __ __JTM__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002077082 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/11/05 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19710910 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-212 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Unfitness |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.0000 |
| 2. | 144.0047 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090107C070212
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that the FSM was 18 years of age at the time of his discharge, and he waived his right to counsel or to receive help in understanding the ramifications of accepting the discharge. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The FSM’s military records show: An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085334C070212
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 alcohol problems started prior to his entering the Army and continued during his active duty tenure. On 21 November 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board determined that the applicant’s UD was proper and equitable and it denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020319
She applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of her discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) states: a. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, provided the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPN codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710655
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 | CY2012 | 20120005664
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 28 July 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), after careful consideration of the applicants military records and all other available evidence, determined the applicants discharge was proper and equitable and voted unanimously to deny the applicants request for an upgrade of his discharge. b. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070015338C080407
David R. Gallagher | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file. The separation authority could...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017780
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) which was upgraded to a general discharge (GD), under the Department of Defense (DOD) Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP), be upgraded to honorable. A memorandum, dated 21 October 1971, Subject: Elimination Proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, shows that a board of officers was directed to investigate his case to determine if he should be discharged from the service. He applied to the Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000074C070206
He failed to report to Fort Knox and was placed in an AWOL status effective 8 October 1966 and remained AWOL until 28 February 1967. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. He was granted fourteen days ordinary leave after BCT and after his leave, he failed to report to his AIT at Fort Knox.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088370C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, and after being advised of the basis of the contemplated separation action and the effects of an UD, he completed his election of rights. On 18 March 1970, the applicant was discharged accordingly.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083515C070212
APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of his request for an upgrade of his Undesirable Discharge to an Honorable Discharge. The applicant failed to return to Vietnam and was reported as being AWOL effective 4 December 1969. On 20 April 1971, the applicant was advised that proceedings to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness were being initiated.