| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Stanley Kelley | Member | ||
| Mr. Harry B. Oberg | 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 entered the Army in October 1959, and had only one misconduct prior to his separation on 30 January 1961. He also states that during his enlistment, he had a six month extension of foreign service in Germany. In support of his application, he provides a copy of his Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20), Service Record (DA Form 24), and separation document (DD Form 214).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 15 October 1959, the applicant was inducted into the Army and entered active duty. He successfully completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 321.10 (Lineman).
The applicant’s DA Form 24 documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition. Section I (Appointments, Promotion, or Reductions) of the applicant’s DA Form 20 confirms that he was promoted to private first class/E-3 (PFC/E-3) on 6 April 1961, and that he was reduced to private/E-2 on 23 June 1961, for misconduct. Section 10 (Remarks) contained the entry “Not Recommended For Further Service.”
On 15 August 1961, the applicant’s unit commander initiated a bar to reenlistment against him. The reasons cited for the action by the unit commander were the applicant’s repeated acts of misconduct, lack of motivation, inadaptability, and absence of interest. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the bar to reenlistment and his understanding of the basis for the action. On
15 September 1961, the bar to reenlistment was approved by the appropriate authority.
The specific facts and circumstances in regard to the processing of the applicant’s request for discharge and its approval are unclear. However, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 that was issued to and authenticated by the applicant with his signature on the date of his discharge. This separation document confirms that on 30 January 1962, he was discharged from the Army under honorable conditions and was issued a GD. It also verifies that the authority for separation was paragraph 7, Army Regulation 635-205, and the reason for discharge was early release of overseas returnee. It also shows that at the time of his separation, he had completed a total of 2 years, 3 months, and 16 days of creditable active military service.
There is no evidence indicating that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue of limitations.
Army Regulation 15-185, the regulation that governs the operation of the Board, sets forth the procedures for processing requests to correct military records. Paragraph 2-9 states, in pertinent part, that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity and the burden of proving error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence rests with the applicant.
Army Regulation 615-360, in effect at the time, directed that the discharge approval authority determine the characterization of service a soldier would receive at the time of separation.
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 contention that his GD should be upgraded to an HD because his discharge was based on one isolated act of misconduct. However, it finds this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief. Regulatory guidance in effect at the time of the applicant’s release from active duty mandated that the discharge approval authority determine the characterization of service a soldier would receive. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board concludes that the applicant’s discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations in effect at the time.
2. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his separation processing. However, it does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214, which was authenticated by the applicant with his signature. This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge, and the Board presumes government regularity in the discharge process.
3. 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. Further, the record shows that he was reduced in rank due to misconduct. Therefore, coupled with the presumption of regularity referred to in the preceding paragraph, the Board finds that the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service and it concludes that the requested relief is not warranted in this case.
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
__RWA__ __KYF___ __BPI__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002078566 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/12/19 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19620130 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-205. . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Early Release Overseas |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011365C070208
Therefore, his records should be corrected to show award of these qualification badges. Therefore, he is entitled to correction of his records to show this award. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected to show award of the Good Conduct Medal (1st Award) for the period 6 August 1959 to 25 July 1961, the National Defense Service Medal, the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar, and the Sharpshooter...
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 | 2002075595C070403
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. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was barred from reenlistment and identified as substandard prior to his separation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060016768C071029
It states that this award was authorized by Section 543, National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), 2003, and is authorized for award to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who have served in Korea on active duty in support of the defense of the Republic of Korea. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief and to excuse failure to timely file. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the...
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 | CY2009 | 20090001935
The applicant requests, in effect, that he be awarded the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal and that it be added to his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge). Section 5 (Service Outside Continental United States) of the applicant's DA Form 24 shows that during the period he was ordered to active duty he had no overseas service. The evidence shows the applicant served on active duty for the period from 23 April 1959 through 12 April 1961 and for the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057420C070420
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001057420SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20010920TYPE OF DISCHARGE(GD)DATE OF DISCHARGE19621009DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR 635-205 DISCHARGE REASONEarly release of overseas returneesBOARD...
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...