| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Linda D. Simmons | Member | ||
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he made a big mistake when he was in the Army that has followed him for many years. He was young and had a chip on his shoulder and struck an officer. He further states that he was punished for it and deserved to be, however, he had no idea of the impact the incident would have on his life. He goes on to state that he needs an upgrade of his discharge so that he can receive veteran's medical benefits. He also states that he has lived a good life, has stayed out of trouble, and that except for the one indiscretion, was a good soldier. In support of his application he submits four third party letters attesting to his character.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri, which destroyed millions of service records. Information obtained from reconstructed records show:
He enlisted in Portland, Oregon, on 4 September 1946 for a period of 3 years. He completed his training and was transferred to the Asian-Pacific Theater of Operations (APTO) on 10 December 1946.
He departed the APTO on 12 August 1947 and arrived in the United States on 27 August 1947, after having served 7 months and 13 days of foreign service.
The facts and circumstances surrounding his administrative discharge are not present in the available records. However, his records do contain a duly constituted report of separation (WD AGO Form 53-55) signed by the applicant, which shows that on 24 September 1947, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions at Fort Lawton, Washington, under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368, for unfitness, due to undesirable habits and traits of character. He had served 11 months and 21 days of total active service and had 30 days of lost time. He was awarded the World War II Victory Medal and the Army of Occupation Medal (Japan).
There is no indication that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 615-368, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel by reason of unfitness. That regulation provided for the discharge of individuals who had demonstrated their unfitness by giving evidence of habits and traits of character manifested by misconduct. 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. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board must presume that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
3. Careful consideration has been given to the applicant’s contentions and supporting documents. However, given the amount of lost time he amassed during a short period of service and the absence of information surrounding the lost time, the Board believes that his discharge does not warrant an upgrade.
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
___jm___ ___lds___ __tbr____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002080635 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/05/01 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1947/09/24 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR615-368 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | UNFIT |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 583 | 144.5000/A51.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088150C070403
This version of the regulation that came into effect 1 July 1947, the month after the applicant’s discharge, did authorize the issue of either a GD or UD for separation for unfitness (undesirable habits or traits of character). The Board notes the applicant’s contention that in order to be fair, the Board must grant him an honorable discharge based on the facts of his case being similar to case which resulted in the Board recommending an upgrade of a UD to a GD. However, the Board further...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083514C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: 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 | CY2004 | 20040007323C070208
On 2 January 1946, the Board of Officers recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 615- 369 on account of inaptness. The Board noted that the "Blue" discharge provides no characterization of service and was used because the applicant's service did not show a testimonial of honest and faithful service required for an honorable discharge. Records show the applicant should have discovered the error or injustice now under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110018514
The applicant's complete military records are not available to the Board for review. A duly-constituted DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 18 June 1954 under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 with an undesirable discharge. However, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 18 June 1954 under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 with an undesirable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059335C070421
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. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009796
On 11 August 1949, the applicant appeared before a board of officers to determine if he should be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 for unfitness, repeated contraction of a venereal disease. His WD AGO Form 53-59 shows he was discharged from active duty on 3 November 1949, under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368, by reason of unfitness - unclean habits including repeated venereal disease with an undesirable discharge. On 13 June 1956, he was discharged from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019232
The applicant's military records are not available to the Board for review. The regulation provided for the discharge of individuals who had demonstrated their unfitness by giving evidence of habits and traits of character manifested by misconduct. The regulation stated that discharge, if recommended, would be for unfitness, except that discharge because of unsuitability (under Army Regulation 615-369 (Enlisted Personnel - Discharge - Inaptitude or Unsuitability)), without referral to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006502
The applicant's complete military records are not available to the Board for review. However, his WD AGO Form 53-59 shows he was discharged on 4 May 1949 under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Men Discharge Unfitness (Undesirable Habits and Traits of Character)) in the rank of private. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to upgrade his discharge to either an honorable or a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088484C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. However, the report of separation provided by the applicant shows: 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 | 20080013340
The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant provides the following additional documentary evidence in support of his application: a. WD AGO Form 53-58 (Enlisted Record and Report of Separation, General Discharge), dated 28 June 1948. b. However, the applicants WD AGO Form 53-58 shows he was separated on 28 June 1948 in accordance with Army Regulation 615-368 (Undesirable Habits or Traits of Character Discharge), by reason of...