| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member | |
| Mr. Bernard P. Ingold | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded to honorable or general under honorable conditions.
APPLICANT STATES: That he served honorably for 3 years and 8 months. That fact, and his young age, should have been considered before giving him a discharge under other than honorable conditions. He provides five letters (dated 14 June 2001, 25 June 2001, 25 June 2001, 26 June 2001, and 21 July 2001) attesting to his good character as supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was born on 28 January 1940. He initially served in the Regular Army from 7 February 1957 through 21 August 1957 when he was honorably discharged for failing to have attained any aptitude area score of 90 or higher.
On 8 October 1958, permission was granted to retest the applicant. He subsequently attained sufficiently qualifying aptitude scores and reenlisted in the Regular Army on 28 November 1958.
Between 14 March 1960 and 13 March 1961, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on four different occasions for missing bed check; being absent without leave from midnight 8 June 1960 to 1:10 a.m. 9 June 1960; being apprehended in a bar without a leave or pass in his possession; and being disorderly in barracks, respectively.
On 27 March 1961, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being drunk and disorderly in quarters. He was sentenced to hard labor without confinement for 2 months, to forfeit $70.00 pay for 3 months, and to be reduced to pay grade E-1.
On 17 June 1961, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of willfully damaging private property, by bending part of a metal fence, of a value of about 100.00 Deutschmarks. He was sentenced to perform hard labor without confinement for 1 month, to forfeit $15.00 pay, and to be reduced to pay grade E-1.
On 29 July 1961, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.
On 4 August 1961, the applicant received a psychiatric examination. No evidence of organic brain disease, psychosis, or neurosis was found. No psychiatric contra-indication to administrative separation was found; however, retention in military service was recommended.
On 31 October 1961, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being disrespectful in language and deportment towards a superior noncommissioned officer, of assaulting a unit police noncommissioned officer by kicking him on the legs, and of being absent without authority from 12:30 p.m. until on or about 10:00 p.m. on 22 October 1961. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 3 months (suspended for 6 months), to confinement without hard labor for 3 months, to forfeit $70.00 pay for 6 months, and to be reduced to pay grade E-1.
On 1 November 1961, the applicant completed another separation physical and was found qualified for separation.
On 9 November 1961, the applicant was given a bar to reenlistment due to his repeated acts of misconduct and substandard conduct.
The applicant's discharge packet is not available.
On 3 January 1962, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness, with an undesirable, under other than honorable conditions discharge. He was given a separation program number (SPN) of 28B (separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities).
Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness. The regulation provided for the discharge of individuals by reason of unfitness with an undesirable discharge when it had been determined that an individual’s military record was characterized by one of more of the following: frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities; sexual perversion; drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit forming narcotic drugs or marijuana; an established pattern for shirking; or an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts.
Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Separations) states, in pertinent part, that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. It is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
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 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 and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.
2. The applicant's contention that he was young at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the relief requested. The Board notes that the applicant was 20 years old when he received his first of four records of non-judicial punishment and 21 years old when he received his first of three courts-martial.
3. The Board notes that the applicant did not serve honorably for 3 years and 8 months. His record of misconduct began before he was 16 months into his second enlistment.
4. Considering the extent of the applicant's misconduct, his service was appropriately characterized as under other than honorable conditions. His record of service during his second enlistment merited neither a fully honorable characterization of service nor a general under honorable conditions characterization of service.
5. The Board notes the applicant's good record of post-service conduct as outlined in his letters of support; however, it does not warrant granting the relief requested.
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
__jns___ __tl____ __bpi ___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003083387 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030429 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19620103 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-208 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A51.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | Mr. Chun |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073879C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 14 October 1963, the applicant was ordered to appear before a board of officers to be convened on 30 October 1963 to determine if he should be discharged from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208. The Board noted the applicant’s letter and other complimentary letters of support which the applicant submitted with his application; however, these...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040002133C070208
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 February 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20040002133 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. He requested a hearing before a board of officers and requested counsel to represent him. On 19 September 1964, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079621C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 29 March 1961, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation to discharge the applicant with a UD. The record does not support, and the applicant has not presented any evidence that he was told that his discharge would automatically be upgraded.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077695C070215
The applicant was released from confinement on 10 August 1960 pursuant to the modification of the sentence announced in Special Court-Martial Order Number 5, Headquarters, US Army, Hawaii, dated 9 August 1960, which directed that so much of the earlier approved sentence in excess of confinement at hard labor for 1 month and forfeiture of $43.00 per month for 1 month was set aside. The applicant was discharged on 30 January 1961 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208. DISCUSSION :...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069577C070402
The applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial on 23 March 1961 of stealing property (a pair of combat boots) from another service member, of a value of less than $20.00. On 26 November 1973, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge. 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 | CY2002 | 2002079534C070215
The board of officers recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 because of unfitness with an undesirable discharge. On 20 January 1960, the separation authority approved the board findings and directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 with an undesirable discharge. Records show the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness –...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075897C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 6 November 1961, the pin in his right tibia was removed and a cast applied. On 5 September 1962, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness, with a discharge under other than honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056910C070420
On 20 December 1960, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 23 August – 27 November 1960. On 30 March 1961, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness with an undesirable, discharge UOTHC. On 6 March 1968, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005876C070205
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 October 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060005876 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. 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. As a result, there is no basis for granting the applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100798C070208
The unit commander also states the applicant was good at performing those duties that he was assigned most of the time and that there appeared to be nothing wrong with him physically or mentally. The applicant may have performed assigned tasks well most of the time, even so, his personal conduct and attitude rendered both his conduct and efficiency rating unsatisfactory and he received no awards. The Board concludes that the applicant has provided no evidence to establish a basis for the...