| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Joyce A. Wright | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Paul M. Smith | Member | |
| Ms. Jennifer L. Prater | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: That he has suffered for 34 years, done the best that he could, and needs medical and dental treatment. It would give him a peace of mind to have his discharged upgraded.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
At the age of 17 years, he enlisted on 8 September 1964, as an armor crewman.
He served in Vietnam from 18 July 1966 to 17 July 1967.
On 28 June 1965, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failure to obey a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer and for being absent from his appointed place of duty. His punishment consisted of forfeiture of pay, reduction to E-2, and 14 days restriction.
On 27 April 1966, he was honorably discharged in pay grade E-3 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. He was promoted to pay grade E-4 effective 22 May 1966.
He was convicted by a special court-martial on 13 March 1967 for failure to obey a lawful order from his superior officer. His sentence consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of pay, and a suspended sentence of confinement at hard labor for 6 months.
On 28 March 1967, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for inadvertently discharging his weapon. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and 7 days extra duty.
He was convicted by a special court-martial on 21 February 1968 for being AWOL from 9 October to 7 December 1967 (59 days) and from 2 January to 30 January 1968 (28 days). His sentence consisted of a forfeiture of pay and confinement at hard labor for 6 months.
On 27 February 1968, the applicant went AWOL and remained absent until he
was arrested and apprehended by civilian authorities on 22 March 1968. He was placed in civilian confinement.
On 9 May 1968, the applicant was convicted by civil authorities for interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle and was placed on probation for 3 years. On 24 May 1968 he was placed in the hands of military authorities.
He was convicted by a special court-martial on 5 June 1968 for being AWOL from 27 February to 8 May 1968 (71 days). His sentence consisted of
confinement at hard labor for 3 months.
The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 20 June 1968, and was found qualified for separation.
On 8 July 1968 the applicant underwent a neuropsychiatric examination which diagnosed the applicant as having an emotional instability reaction. The psychiatrist indicated that the applicant had a history of marked social inadaptability prior to, and during his tour in the service. The applicant's condition was part of a character and behavior disorder due to deficiencies in emotional and personal development of such a degree that he was not suited for further military service. He used poor judgement, was not committed to productive goals, and was completed unmotivated. He determined that the applicant could distinguish right from wrong and that he possessed the mental capacity to participate in administrative or judicial board proceedings.
On 29 July 1968, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was being considered for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to his civil court conviction.
On 30 July 1968, the applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to his civil court conviction. The applicant elected not to appeal.
On 23 August 1968, the approval authority directed that the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The applicant was discharged on 4 September 1968, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to his civil court conviction. He had a total of 3 years, 2 months, and 25 days of
creditable service and had 272 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 25 February 1975. The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and denied his request on 16 July 1975.
Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at that time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 33 of the regulation provided, in
pertinent part, that members convicted by civil authorities would be considered for separation. An undesirable discharge 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 noted the applicant’s extensive record of AWOL and numerous other infractions of military order as well as his civil offense. In view of these serious offenses and his undistinguished record of service, the Board determined that he was properly discharged and there was no inequity or injustice, which warranted upgrading his discharge.
2. The Board notes that the applicant is unable to obtain Veterans Administration (VA) benefits due to his character of discharge. While the Board is empathetic, it does not upgrade discharges in order for applicants to obtain VA benefits.
3. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
4. The type of separation directed and the reasons for that separation were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
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
__jl____ __ps____ __jp____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002080044 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030603 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19680904 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-206 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 191/360 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004628
On 28 October 1968, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, for Civil Conviction, with an undesirable discharge. The available evidence shows the applicant was recommended for discharge with an undesirable discharge by reason of civil conviction. The available evidence also shows the applicant was in civil confinement during the processing of his separation as he had been sentenced to 1 1/2 to 4 years and he was confined...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005661
On 16 February 1968, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, for Civil Conviction, with an undesirable discharge. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was recommended for discharge with an undesirable discharge by reason of civil conviction. The evidence of record also shows the applicant was in civil confinement during the processing of his separation as he had been sentenced to 5 years and was confined at a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001681
On 14 May 1971, the applicant's intermediate commander recommended approval of the applicant's discharge, with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, and remarked that the applicant's sentence to confinement for not less than 25 years warranted his discharge from the Army. Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for misconduct. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general...
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080009392
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant's records show that he was promoted to the pay grade of E-3 on 7 June 1968. On 15 June 1977 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070019041
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The applicant's records show that he received five Article 15s, he was convicted by two special courts-martial, he was AWOL on three occasions, and had two instances of military confinement and one civil confinement during his enlistment.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008477
However, a Report of Proceedings of Board of Officers, dated 9 May 1967, states the recommendations of the Board of Officers that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 and issued an undesirable discharge are approved. 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. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000667C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should commence on the date of final action by the ADRB. As a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020452
BOARD DATE: 11 June 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120020452 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of his undesirable discharge. The available evidence does not show the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.
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...