| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Luis Almodova | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: "I was young and misled."
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted on 15 December 1954. At the time of his enlistment, he was over the age of 18.
Following completion of basic combat training and advanced individual training on the Island of Hawaii, he was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) 111.00 (Light Weapons Infantryman). He was reassigned with his unit from Hawaii to Fort Riley, Kansas, where he received training and was awarded the MOS, 941.10 (Cook).
DA Form 24, Service Record, reveals that the applicant was promoted through the ranks and on 23 February 1956, he attained the rank and pay grade, Specialist 3rd Class, E-4. This would be the highest rank and pay grade that the applicant would hold during his military service.
On 26 November 1957, the applicant was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) and transferred to the US Army Reserve, Hawaii Military District. On the date of his REFRAD, he had 2 years, 11 months, and 12 days active Federal service with no lost time.
The applicant remained in the US Army Reserve until 20 February 1958 when he reenlisted in the Regular Army in the rank and pay grade of Specialist 3rd Class, E-4, for a period of 4 years.
He was assigned for duty with the 1st Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, located in Hawaii.
On 11 December 1959, the applicant absented himself from his unit and remained absent without leave (AWOL) until 13 December 1959. There is no evidence in the available records to indicate that he was punished for this absence.
On 25 May 1960 he again went AWOL and did not return until 30 May 1960. The applicant was given a summary court-martial and on 6 July 1960 was found guilty. He was sentenced to perform hard labor without confinement for 25 days, to forfeit $20.00 and to be reduced to Recruit, pay grade E-1. The sentence was approved on 6 July 1960.
On 11 July 1960 he absented himself without authority until 13 July 1960. For this absence, he received a special court-martial. He was placed in confinement to await trial by court-martial. He was found guilty and was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 3 months and to forfeit $43.00 per month for 3 months. The sentence was adjudged and approved on 20 July 1960. The applicant was released from confinement on 10 August 1960 pursuant to the modification of the sentence announced in Special Court-Martial Order Number 5, Headquarters, US Army, Hawaii, dated 9 August 1960, which directed that so much of the earlier approved sentence in excess of confinement at hard labor for 1 month and forfeiture of $43.00 per month for 1 month was set aside.
On 16 August 1960, the applicant departed AWOL and remained in that status until 22 August 1960. On 24 August 1960, he was placed in pretrial confinement. He was arraigned, tried, and was found guilty of being AWOL for the above period by a special court-martial. He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 6 months and to forfeit $43.00 per month for 6 months on 2 September 1960. The sentence was adjudged and approved on 2 September 1960. The applicant remained in confinement until 30 January 1961 when the unexecuted portion of the sentence was remitted by Special Court-Martial Order Number 3, Headquarters, 1st Battle Group, 27th Infantry, dated 27 January 1961.
On 14 October 1960, the applicant was ordered to appear before a board of officers to determine if he was to remain in the Army or be discharged for unfitness. The applicant waived appearance before a board of officers on the same date.
On 8 November 1960, the applicant was referred for a psychiatric evaluation. During this evaluation, it was determined that the applicant had an antisocial personality manifested by disregard for the usual social codes, self-centered manipulated tendencies, a military history of repeated AWOL and negative motivation for continued military service. The examining psychiatrist cleared the applicant for separation.
Neither the basic recommendation for discharge nor any of the associated documents, to include the statement submitted by the applicant, if any was made, is in his file. According to information reflected on HC Form 69B, Board Action Time Control Sheet, which is available in his personnel records file, the separation authority, the division's commanding general, approved the request on 17 January 1961 and directed that an undesirable discharge be issued.
The unexecuted portion of the sentence was remitted effective 30 January 1961 so that he could be discharged. The applicant was discharged on 30 January 1961 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208. His service was characterized as undesirable and he was provided an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, DD Form 258A. The applicant was discharged in the rank of Recruit, pay grade E-1. On the date of his discharge, he had 2 years, 4 months, and
19 days creditable active service and 202 days of lost time in his current enlistment and 5 years, 4 months, and 1 day total active service.
The applicant received and acknowledged receipt of Copy Number 2 of the discharge board proceedings under the provisions of AR 635-208 on 30 January 1961.
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.
Army Regulation 635-208, then in effect, provided in pertinent part, the policies, procedures, and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unfit for further military service. Action to separate an individual was to be taken when, in the judgment of the commander, it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impractical or was unlikely to produce a satisfactory soldier. Individuals discharged under this regulation normally receive a UD.
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 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.
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 noted the applicant’s contention that he was young and mislead. but the evidence of record shows that at the time of his initial enlistment he was over 18 years of age; at the time of his reenlistment, he was over 21 years of age, and the first time he went AWOL, he was already more than 23 years of age.
2. The applicant provided no evidence that his age or level of maturity impaired his ability to be a good soldier or that he was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully served their country.
3. The applicant has not alleged error or injustice in the discharge process. The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.
4. Finally, the Board considered the applicant’s entire record of service. The Board is convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable. The applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. Through his misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable or general discharge. The applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge.
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
__rvo___ __tbr___ __dph___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002077695 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021107 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19610130 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-208 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A51.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.0000 |
| 2. | 144.9301 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100798C070208
The unit commander also states the applicant was good at performing those duties that he was assigned most of the time and that there appeared to be nothing wrong with him physically or mentally. The applicant may have performed assigned tasks well most of the time, even so, his personal conduct and attitude rendered both his conduct and efficiency rating unsatisfactory and he received no awards. The Board concludes that the applicant has provided no evidence to establish a basis for the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075897C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 6 November 1961, the pin in his right tibia was removed and a cast applied. On 5 September 1962, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness, with a discharge under other than honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005876C070205
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 October 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060005876 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. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. As a result, there is no basis for granting the applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089227C070403
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. On 3 November 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade to honorable.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069577C070402
The applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial on 23 March 1961 of stealing property (a pair of combat boots) from another service member, of a value of less than $20.00. On 26 November 1973, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge. 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 | CY2008 | 20080014635
When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. There is no evidence which shows that the applicant's discharge proceedings were not in compliance with the applicable regulation in effect at the time. _________XXX______________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006087
On 9 May 1961, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that he be issued an undesirable discharge. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081500C070215
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 | CY2004 | 2004101950C070208
On 5 January 1962, the applicant's commander recommended that the applicant be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-208 and furnished an undesirable discharge. The appropriate authority, a major general, approved the recommendation for the applicant's discharge on 6 February 1962 and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 13...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015216
This form also shows: * he was issued a DD Form 258A (Undesirable Discharge Certificate) * he completed 1 year, 5 months, and 16 days of service, of which 11 months and 21 days was foreign service * he had 323 days of time lost under Title 10, U.S. Code, section 972 9. b. Paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. However, his record contains a copy of his DD Form 214 which shows he was discharged on 21 September 1961 under...