| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn. | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Hubert O. Fry | Member | ||
| Ms. Marla J. Troup | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he served over two good years prior to his discharge.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 18 November 1966, he enlisted in the Regular Army for three years. He successfully completed basic training at Fort Ord, California and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Gordon, Georgia. Upon completion of training, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).
The applicant’s record confirms that the highest rank he held while serving on active duty was private first class/E-3, which he attained on 16 February 1968. It also shows that he was reduced to private/E-1 on 10 August 1968, as a result of a court-martial sentence. On 23 December 1968, he was once again advanced to private/E-2.
The applicant’s service record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition. However, it does reveal an extensive disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on two separate occasions. In addition, his records shows court-martial convictions by both a summary and special court-martial.
On 2 May 1969, the applicant’s unit commander recommended that the applicant be discharged for unfitness. This recommendation was primarily based on the applicant’s frequent incidents of a disrespectful nature with military authorities and established patterns of shirking. It also documented the extensive counseling the applicant received from various members of the chain of command, and his record of NJP and court-martial convictions. The record also shows that during his tenure on active duty, the applicant accrued 131 days of time lost due to being absent without leave (AWOL) and in confinement.
On 3 May 1969, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unfitness. He consulted with legal counsel, and after being advised of the basis of the contemplated separation action, he completed an election of rights. He elected to waive consideration of his case by a board of officers, personal appearance before a board of officers, and representation by counsel. He also elected not to submit a statement of rebuttal in his own behalf.
On 2 June 1968, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. As a result of the authority and reason for discharge, the applicant was also automatically reduced to the lowest enlisted rank.
The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to and authenticated by the applicant with his signature on the date of his separation confirms that he held the rank of private/E-1 at that time. This document also verifies that at the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 2 years, 2 months, and 3 days of creditable active military service, and he had accrued 131 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.
On 7 January 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board reviewed and denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge after determining that the discharge had been both proper and equitable.
Army Regulation 635-212, 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 he had served two good years before his discharge and as a result his discharge should be upgraded. However, the Board finds his service was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant the requested relief.
2. The Board also notes that the applicant was notified of the contemplated separation action by his unit commander, consulted legal counsel, and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and of its possible effects. In addition, subsequent to this counseling, he elected to waive his right to have his case considered by a board of officers.
3. The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, it finds that the character of the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service. Therefore, the Board concludes that an upgrade to his discharge is not warranted at this time.
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__ __HOF___ __MT _ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003084977 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/06/17 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1968/06//02 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-212 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Unfitness |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085636C070212
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general (under honorable) discharge or to an honorable discharge. The applicant had been formally counseled on 18, 22, and 26 November and 2 December 1968, according to the recommendation for administrative elimination action. The record shows that during his service time, the applicant accepted NJP on one occasion and was convicted by a special court-martial in the span of just over six months from the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088347C070403
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. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050008146C070206
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 18 January 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050008146 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. On 7 November 1969, the unit commander advised the applicant that he was recommending the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations), by reason of unfitness. As a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086283C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088370C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, and after being advised of the basis of the contemplated separation action and the effects of an UD, he completed his election of rights. On 18 March 1970, the applicant was discharged accordingly.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050007335C070206
The applicant states that, although his discharge was correct at the time he was separated, his character and conduct since his discharge warrants an upgrade. The applicant’s service personnel records show he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal. The applicant's record of service included one nonjudicial punishment for being AWOL and two special courts-martial for being AWOL.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070004066
The evaluation shows that the applicant was referred for evaluation prior to elimination under Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations) for unsuitability. 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. _____Linda D. Simmons___ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20070004066 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED TYPE OF DISCHARGE DATE OF DISCHARGE DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR 635-212 DISCHARGE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073349C070403
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: In addition, there is no evidence of record showing that he ever applied for a hardship discharge; and even if he had, the Board finds this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief. The evidence of record shows the applicant was separated for unfitness and reduced to the lowest enlisted grade based on an extensive history of misconduct.
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050014118
David K. Hassenritter | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090277C070212
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 REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant's chain of command was unanimous in recommending approval of the action and in recommending that the applicant be discharged with an undesirable discharge.