| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Mr. Patrick H. McGann | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was court-martialed for stealing a jeep when in fact, three other soldiers were involved in it with him and they all blamed it on him. While in the stockade serving his sentence of 6 months, a lieutenant colonel called him into the administration office and asked him if he would like to get out of the Army with a general discharge and still keep his reenlistment bonus. He continues by stating that he saw this as an opportunity to make a clean break and start over. He goes on to state that he believes that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one incident over 30 months of service. He further states that he has been a good, productive citizen who has raised a family and his children are productive citizens of the community as well.
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. However, information from alternate sources show:
He was inducted in February 1954 and served until he was honorably discharged on 23 May 1954, for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. He reenlisted in the Regular Army on 24 May 1954 and served until he again was honorably discharged in the rank of private first class on 16 August 1955, for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. He again reenlisted on 17 August 1955 for a period of 6 years.
The facts and circumstances surrounding his administrative discharge are not present in the available records. However, the available records contain a duly constituted report of separation (DD Form 214), which shows that he was reduced to the pay grade of E-1 on 21 June 1956 and that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 24 August 1956, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 and the proceedings of a board of officers convened at Fort Ord, California, on 3 August 1956, based on habits and traits of character that rendered him unfit for further service. He had served 2 years, 4 months, and 7 days of total active service and 64 days of lost time due to confinement.
There is no evidence in the available records to show 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 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel having undesirable habits and traits of character that render then unfit for military service. 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, it must be presumed 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. The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.
4. Careful consideration has been given to the applicant’s contentions of good post-service conduct. However, this in itself is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to his record of undistinguished service.
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
__sac___ ___ra ___ ___pm___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002080821 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/04/03 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1956/08/24 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-208 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | UNFIT |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 583 | 144.5000/A51.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075511C070403
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. There is no evidence in the available records that shows that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080015241
The applicant's military service records are not available to the Board for review. The applicants available military personnel records contain a DD Form 214 that shows he entered active duty this period on 19 May 1950 and was discharged on 16 January 1958 under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208. The evidence of record shows that the applicant initially entered active duty on 19 May 1950, was honorably discharged for the purpose of his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100028162
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. It shows: a. he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 6 years while in Germany; b. his most significant duty assignment was with Battery C, 552nd Anti-Aircraft Artillery Battalion; c. he had 57 days of lost time; d. he was separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 (Personnel Separations Discharge Undesirable Habits and Traits of Character) for habits and traits that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019545
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). His record includes a letter from the NPRC Records Reconstruction Branch, dated 15 January 1991, informing him he had been erroneously issued an NA Form 13038 showing his service was terminated by "general discharge under honorable conditions." The applicant is advised to destroy the erroneous NA Form 13038 in his possession showing he was separated by "General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions."
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060017614C071029
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 June 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060017614 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 states he was having a conflict with Sergeant W___ six months before he was separated. He was 19 years old at that time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | AR20050016538C070206
The applicant’s military records are not available to the Board for review. Meanwhile, the commander submitted a request to have the applicant appear before a board of officers to determine if he should be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 for unfitness due to undesirable habits or traits of character. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050006899C070206
The applicant states, in effect, that his conduct prior to his military service and after his military service warrants an upgrade of his 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. The applicant’s record reveals an extensive disciplinary history that included three summary court-martial convictions, one special court-martial conviction, and 52 days of lost time due to AWOL.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008696
On 9 May 1958, the applicant's commander submitted a request that the applicant appear before a board of officers convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Undesirable Habits and Traits of Character) to determine if he should be separated from the Service. On 6 June 1958, the separation authority approved the report of proceedings of the board of officers, ordered the applicant's discharge, and ordered that he be furnished an Undesirable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070009864
That regulation provided for the discharge of individuals who had demonstrated their unfitness by giving evidence of undesirable habits and traits of character manifested by misconduct. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial and he NJP imposed against him on four separate occasions as a result of his acts of indiscipline. __Jeffrey C. Redmann__ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20070009864 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20071213 TYPE OF DISCHARGE DATE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008278
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. He was again transferred to Fort Riley to serve his confinement and was subsequently assigned to Fort Campbell, Kentucky. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations.