| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Stanley Kelley | Member | |
| Ms. Gail J. Wire | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: That his discharge is inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident. He states that he was assigned to Panama at the time of the incident, and that while attempting to defend the woman he was with, the military police arrived. He states that he and his friend resisted arrest and attacked the military police. As a result, the applicant states he was transferred to the Retraining Brigade at Fort Riley, Kansas and accepted a discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. He notes that he served for 36 months without any other adverse action. He submits no evidence in support of his request.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He entered active duty on 9 January 1973. He was nearly 18 years old at the time of his enlistment and had a GT (general technical) score of 107.
In April 1973, while undergoing training, he was punished under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for receiving stolen property. However, he successfully completed training and by September 1973 had been promoted to pay grade E-3.
While assigned to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, the applicant was punished two more times under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice; once in May 1974 for failing to go to his appointed place of duty and once in August 1974 for disobeying an order.
In February 1975 the applicant was assigned to Panama. He was punished a fourth time under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in December 1975 for again failing to go to his appointed place of duty.
In April 1976 the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of striking a commissioned officer, disobeying a commissioned officer and a noncommissioned officer, being disrespectful, and breaking restriction. His punishment included confinement at hard labor for 5 months and forfeiture. He was then assigned to the Retraining Brigade at Fort Riley, Kansas.
In May 1976 his commander at the Retraining Brigade initiated action to administratively separate the applicant from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 for frequent incidents of a discreditable nature. The commander cited the applicant's special court-martial and records of punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice as the basis for his recommendation. In an interview with the commander, the applicant stated that he "wants out of the Army." The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation and waived his attendant rights.
On 21 May 1976 the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions and was issued an undesirable discharge certificate.
Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, in effect at that time, provided for the administrative separation of soldiers for unfitness who were involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature. When separation for unfitness was warranted 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. The applicant's contention that his discharge should be upgraded because it was the result of a single incident is without foundation. The Board notes that the applicant was convicted by one special court-martial and was punished four times under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
2. The applicant's discharge was appropriate considering his frequent incidents of misconduct.
3. 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 that requirement.
4. 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
__RVO__ __SK____ __GJW__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003085065 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030522 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060324C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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 has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested or to excuse the failure to file within the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069956C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 26 November 1973, the applicant submitted an appeal to the punishment of the Article 15 proceedings, dated 10 October 1973. In reviewing the applicant’s record, the Board noted his record of indiscipline, to include nonjudicial punishments and a special court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050016029C070206
On the date of his discharge, the applicant had completed 2 years and 6 months total active military service, with 125 days lost due to absence without leave and confinement. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Records show the applicant exhausted his administrative remedies in this case when his case was last reviewed by the ADRB on 16 March 1977.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080880C070215
and recommended a general discharge. The immediate commander again recommended approval of the applicant's request with a general discharge. On 1 November 1973 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request to upgrade the discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040008823C070208
Leonard G. Hassell | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant states that he had only just returned from Vietnam and was still on drugs, which made the discharge unjust at the time. The separation authority considered the case and directed that the applicant be separated with an undesirable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010900C070208
It was that examination that the applicant included with his application to the Board. Although documents associated with the applicant’s administrative separation were not in records available to the Board, his separation document indicates that he was discharged “under conditions other than honorable” on 16 December 1978, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board to have his discharge upgraded.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120012059
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Headquarters, U.S. Army Retraining Brigade, Fort Riley, Kansas, Special Orders Number 26, dated 5 February 1973, discharged the applicant from the Army on 7 February 1973, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13 (Unfitness), and he was issued a DD From 258A (Undesirable Discharge) certificate. A review of the applicant's military...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071640C070402
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 indication in the available records to show that the applicant 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 | CY2008 | 20080010349
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. f. On 6 May 1981, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) by reason of frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. A review of the applicant's record of service, which included non-judicial punishment on two occasions and a special court-martial shows the applicant did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015693
The applicant requests that his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) be corrected to reflect that he was discharged on 21 December 1977, that he served in Vietnam from January 1975 to June 1975, and that he be paid for the 67 days he served in confinement. The applicant's contention that his DD Form 214 should be corrected to reflect that he was discharged on 21 December 1977 and that he served 6 months in Vietnam has been noted and found to lack merit. Therefore, the Board...