| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member | ||
| Mr. Bernard P. Ingold | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That his discharge should be upgraded because he did not have willful and persistent misconduct. He further states that he did have several minor offenses but never received any nonjudicial punishment. He also states that there was no counseling, warnings or rehabilitation offered for his drinking problem. In support of his application he submits a copy of his report of separation (DD Form 214) and documents from the Veterans Administration indicating that he was not barred from benefits because of his discharge.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri. However, the applicant's DD Form 214 shows:
He enlisted in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on 24 October 1955, in the rank of private E-1, for a period of 3 years. He completed his training and was transferred to Fort Benning, Georgia, for duty as an engineer construction helper.
On 8 August 1957, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness due to habits and traits of character manifested by misconduct. He had served 1 year, 4 months and 25 days of total active service and had 143 days of lost time. He was separated in the rank of private E-1 and his date of rank was 21 December 1956, which is indicative that he was reduced in grade.
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 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 them 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, 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. 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. 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.
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
__js_____ ___bpi __ ___tl____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002081149 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/04/29 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1957/08/08 |
| 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 | 2002067610C070402
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 | 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 | CY2001 | 2001059182C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 6 December 1957, the board of officers recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 because of unfitness due an established pattern of shirking with an undesirable discharge. However, his records contain a Case Report and Directive from the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) which indicates that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056266C070420
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded. On 11 July 1957, the applicant’s unit commander completed a statement in which he recommended that the applicant be discharged from the Army. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and that the character of the discharge was commensurate with his overall record of service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080821C070215
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 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 | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000640C070208
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. Records show that the applicant was 19 years and 4 months old at the time his active service began and 22 years and 6 months old at the time of his discharge. Evidence shows that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time and that the ADRB later upgraded the applicant's discharge from Under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003113C070205
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 August 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060003113 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 that he was not court-martialed, but he was taken before a board of officers. On 14 May 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), by unanimous vote, denied the applicant’s request for an...
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 | CY2002 | 2002068951C070402
On 19 February 1959 the applicant’s commanding officer recommended that the applicant be required to appear before a board of officers to determine if he should be discharged for undesirable habits or traits of character under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208. Counsel also called the board’s attention to the report of psychiatric evaluation, showing that the applicant had acted out against authority, which could be channeled by correct counseling. The applicant was discharged on...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065843C070421
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. A board of officers was convened at Wackerheim, West Germany on 27 November 1959, to determine if the applicant should be separated from the service.