| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | ||
| Ms. Marla J. Troup | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, he requests an upgrade to his discharge in order to be able to receive medical benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). He states that he can no longer afford to pay for his medical needs. He concludes that he deeply regrets the circumstances that brought him to this situation, but he desperately needs help.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant’s military records were not available to the Board for review. A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members’ records at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973. It is believed that the applicant’s records were lost in that fire.
The specific facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not on file. However, a properly constituted separation document (DD Form 214), which contains the authority and reason for the applicant’s discharge is available. This document confirms that the applicant entered active duty on
14 June 1949.
Item 27 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of the applicant’s separation document is blank and shows that he earned no awards or decorations during his tenure on active duty.
The DD Form 214 also confirms that the applicant was discharged with an
UD on 2 August 1952. Item 8 (Reason and Authority for Separation) contains an entry that verifies that he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368, by reason of unfitness. Item 55 (Remarks) also contains an entry that verifies that the applicant accrued 240 days of lost time during his active duty tenure.
Army Regulation 615-368, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority, established the policy, and prescribed the procedures for separating members for unfitness. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions.
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 UD should be upgraded in order to allow him to obtain medical benefits administered by the DVA. However, while empathetic with his medical difficulties, this factor alone is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.
2. The available evidence is void of a discharge packet containing the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to the applicant’s discharge. However, the Board notes that there is a properly constituted
DD Form 214 on file that was authenticated by the applicant with his signature. This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge, and the Board presumes government regularity in the discharge process.
3. Lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were protected throughout the separation process. Thus, the Board finds an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the requested relief.
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
___fe ___ ___mt___ ___le ___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003083443 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/04/10 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1952/08/02 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 615-368 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Unfitness |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010738
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded. The applicant had already exceeded the 15-year statute of limitations to petition the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge when he submitted his DD Form 293 to that board on 12 June 2006. Individuals discharged under this regulation would normally be issued an UD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062655C070421
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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant has not presented and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070004115
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 9 August 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070004115 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 records available to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records were provided in part by the applicant and from reconstructed records. On 14 August 1953, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074741C070403
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. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he finished his tour of duty and served 6 months of confinement, as a result of a special court-martial. On 14 January 1954, the applicant’s commander initiated a request to have the applicant appear before a board of officers to determine if he should be discharged under the provisions of Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000290C070205
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. There is no evidence in the applicant's records, and the applicant has provided none, to show that on or about 1955 he received an honorable discharge, under general amnesty. In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show, to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise appear, that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073424C070403
On 18 April 1955, the appropriate authority approved the Board findings for discharge under the provisions of AR 615-368 with a UD. Accordingly, on 17 May 1955, the applicant was discharged from the service with a UD. However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the Board found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050018247C070206
On 10 June 1981 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059810C070421
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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. On 11 January 1954, the applicant’s commander requested that he appear before a board of officers convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368, to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069463C070402
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The FSM’s military records were not available to the Board for review. However, the separation document confirms that he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368, by reason of unfit habits and traits of character that rendered retention in service undesirable, and that he received an UD. There is no evidence that the Army Discharge Review Board received the FSM’s request for an upgrade to his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080139C070215
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. 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: