| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Linda D. Simmons | Member | ||
| Mr. Frank C. Jones, II | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that 35 years ago, his youth and immaturity impaired his ability to serve in the Army. He states that now he is 55 years old and has an incurable cancer. He claims that he is a good American citizen and that he has raised his children to love their country. He also states that he would now like his discharge upgraded to honorable before he dies as a matter of American honor and pride. He claims that he would like to be able to be proud of saying he served his country, and he wants his children to know that their father was a good soldier. He concludes by stating that he deeply and sincerely regrets his stupidity during the 1960s, and he has seen the error of his ways. He claims that since the tragedies of 9/11, he has never been prouder to be an American. Finally, he states that this upgrade would mean a great deal to him and his family.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 29 December 1965, the applicant entered the Regular Army for a period of
4 years He was trained in and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11E (Armor Crewman). His record shows that during his active duty tenure, the highest rank he attained was private/E-2 (PV2).
The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition. However, it does contain an extensive disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on two separate occasions and two separate convictions by special court-martial (SPCM).
On 11 April 1966, he accepted NJP for being absent without leave (AWOL) on
11 April 1966 and on 6 May 1966, he accepted his second NJP for sleeping on guard duty. On 19 August 1966, he was convicted by a SPCM of being AWOL from on or about 26 July until on or about 3 August 1966 and from on or about 5 August until on or about 14 August 1966; and on 21 September 1967, he again convicted by a SPCM of being AWOL from on or about 2 May until on or about 27 June 1967.
On 21 November 1967, the applicant was notified by his unit commander that separation action was being initiated to eliminate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness. The commander stated that the action was based on the applicant’s disciplinary history and on his lack of self-motivation for continued service.
On 30 November 1967, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects. Subsequent to this counseling, he completed his election of rights by waiving consideration of his case by a board of officers, waiving his right to a personal appearance before a board of officers, waiving his right to consulting counsel, and finally he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 2 December 1967, the separation action was approved by the appropriate authority, and on 8 December 1967, the applicant was discharged from the Army with an UD. At the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 1 year,
3 months, and 20 days of creditable active military service, and he had accrued 234 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his 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. Paragraph 6a(1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness. 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 notes the applicant’s contention that his youth impaired his ability to serve and it carefully considered the personal issues he raised. However, while the Board understands the reasons he desires an upgrade to his discharge, it finds none of the factors raised support granting the requested relief.
2. The applicant’s discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations in effect at the time. The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and that his rights were fully protected throughout the discharge process. It also finds that the discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service and that it was appropriate based on his extensive record of misconduct.
3. 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.
4. 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
__WTM__ __LDS _ __ FCJ__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002080764 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/04/06 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19671208 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-212 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Unfitness |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.6400 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069983C070402
The Board considered the following evidence: He believes that his PTSD symptoms are related to the rape incident in Vietnam. He had completed 11 months and 18 days of active military service.
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050014118
David K. Hassenritter | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074782C070403
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: Further, the applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains no evidence showing that he applied for or was denied a hardship discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075234C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 18 December 1974, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. On 18 December 1974, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002084350C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant did not apply to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested or to excuse the failure to file within the time...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058668C070421
The separation action was approved by the appropriate authority, who directed the applicant receive an UD and on 15 May 1968, the applicant was discharged from the Army accordingly. On 11 December 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge after having determined that the discharge was proper and equitable. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence...
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | 20060003329
On 26 April 1968, the separation authority approved the separation action on the applicant and directed that he receive an UD. The applicant's contention that his overall record of service, and post service good conduct support an upgrade of his discharge, and the supporting documents he submitted were carefully considered. The evidence confirms the applicant had an extensive disciplinary history throughout the time he served, which included the time he served in the RVN.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001067045C070421
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. On 26 January 1968, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness and directed that the applicant be furnished an undesirable discharge. The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included two nonjudicial punishments, two summary...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083902C070212
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. On 3 November 1967, the applicant's unit commander notified the applicant that he was recommending that he [the applicant] be discharged from the Army for unfitness under the provisions of AR 635-212, Paragraphs 6a(1). Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, defines a general discharge as a separation from the Army under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000853
The separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 due to unfitness with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel) in effect at the time provides in: a. paragraph 3-7 that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions...