| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Carolyn Wade | Analyst |
| Ms. Jennifer L. Prater | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member | |
| Mr. Patrick H. McGann, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he would like to know why he was given a UD and that he would appreciate any information as to how to get his UD upgraded. The applicant did not provide any documents in support of his application.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was inducted into the Army of the United States on 23 May 1967 for a period of 2 years. Following completion of all required military training, the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 94B, Cook, and was assigned to Fort Jackson, South Carolina.
On 11 October 1967, the applicant departed his unit absent without leave (AWOL) and remained absent until on or about 13 October 1967.
On 13 November 1967, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of one specification of AWOL and one specification of disobeying a lawful order from his superior officer. He was sentenced to reduction to private/E-1, confinement at hard labor for 6 months, and forfeiture of $60.00 pay per month for 6 months (confinement at hard labor for 6 months was suspended for 6 months). The sentence was adjudged and approved on the same day.
On 16 November 1967, the applicant departed his unit AWOL and remained absent through 13 December 1967.
On 13 January 1968, the confinement at hard labor portion of the court-martial sentence was vacated and the applicant was confined in the Fort Jackson Post Stockade to serve out his sentence.
On 24 January 1968, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of one specification of AWOL from 16 November 1967 to 13 December 1967. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and forfeiture of $60.00 pay per month for 6 months. The sentence was adjudged and approved on 24 January 1968.
On 29 February 1968, staff of the Mental Hygiene Consultation Division evaluated the applicant and determined that it would be in the applicant’s and the Army’s best interest to discharge him. It was revealed that the applicant suffered from a passive-aggressive personality disorder and that it existed prior to service.
On 18 March 1968, the unit commander recommended that the applicant be required to appear before a board of officers convened under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-212 for the purpose of determining whether he should be discharged prior to the expiration of his term of service. The unit commander’s reasons for recommending discharge were the applicant’s repeated AWOL’s and the recommendation by the Mental Hygiene Consultation Division. The unit commander also indicated the applicant had been counseled by the chain of command at least 5 times, accepted nonjudicial punishment at least once, and was court martialed twice. The nonjudicial punishment is not in the available records.
Also on 18 March 1968, having been advised by counsel of the proposed separation action for unfitness under AR 635-212, the applicant waived his right to appear before a board of officers, waived his right to counsel, and declined to make a statement in his own behalf.
On 16 April 1968, the unexecuted portion of the sentence, dated 13 November 1967 and not subsequently modified, was remitted.
The appropriate authority approved the applicant’s discharge with a UD. Accordingly, on 17 April 1968, the applicant was discharged from the Army with a UD. He was credited with 5 months and 22 days of creditable military service and 187 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 6a 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.
There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board prior to its 15-year statute of limitations.
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.
2. The applicant was given a UD because he was found to be unfit for military service due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. The applicant’s discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.
3. The Board carefully reviewed the applicant’s overall quality of service as well as his misconduct. The Board determined that these numerous incidents of misconduct (two periods of AWOL, two court-martial’s, and nonjudicial punishment) adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant’s service below that meriting a general or fully honorable discharge.
4. The Board concludes that the character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall record of military service.
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
___jlp__ __aao___ __phm___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003084101 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030923 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19680417 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-212 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A50.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058144C070420
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 : That he requests that his discharge be reinstated to a general discharge because he was in the Army for two years mainly performing hard labor without pay. On 20 May 1969, the applicant acknowledged notification of separation action for unfitness, consulted with legal counsel, waived his right to a hearing...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080002223
On 28 May 1968, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant be furnished an undesirable discharge. There is no indication in the available records that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade within its 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709683
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 | CY1997 | 9709683C070209
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 Board considered the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077239C070215
The Board considered the following evidence: On 6 March 1968, the applicant, still undergoing AIT, accepted NJP for being AWOL from 4-5 March 1968. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002077239SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20030313TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UD)DATE OF DISCHARGE19690415DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-212DISCHARGE REASONA51.00BOARD DECISION(DENY)REVIEW AUTHORITYISSUES 1.144.50002.3.4.5.6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088747C070403
The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on the date of separation confirms that he completed a total of 5 months and 17 days of creditable active military service, and that he accrued a total of 399 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement. On 12 March 1984, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed the applicant’s case and determined that the characterization and reason for the applicant’s discharge were both proper and equitable, and it voted to deny his request for an upgrade...
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 | CY2006 | 20060013114C071029
On about 16 November 1967, the applicant's commander recommended that he appear before a board of officers for the purpose of determining whether he should be discharged before the expiration of his term of service for unfitness. He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and waived a personal appearance before a board of officers. Evidence of this incident was not found in the applicant's record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022432
The examiner stated: a. However, at the time of the applicant's separation, the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, provided for a general discharge under honorable conditions for an individual whose military record was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064909C070421
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. 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.