| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Rosa M. Chandler | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Robert J. Osborn, II | Member | |
| Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In essence, that he was young when he was assigned to Korea. A Soldier on guard duty shot him in the leg and a field medic treated him, but no record was made of the injury. Today, he suffers from the leg injury and it has contributed to his back problems. Approximately 30 years ago, a doctor at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center, Salem, Virginia, diagnosed him as suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder and stated he should have received a medical discharge. He did not pursue the issue and he worked as long as possible, but he has been unemployable for the past 10 years. Now, he needs help. He trusts the Board will give him what he deserves. He provides in support of his request DD Forms 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the periods ending 10 February 1958 and 2 August 1960.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
That prior to the period of enlistment under review, the applicant’s mother signed a declaration of parental consent for him to enlist in the Army at age 17. He served from 21 January 1955 through 10 February 1958 and was assigned to Korea from December 1955-April 1957 where he worked as a construction helper and a combat engineer. There is no evidence in the record that he ever received a gunshot wound to his leg. During this period of service for which he was honorably separated, he received one special court-martial (SPCM) conviction and he had 19 days of lost time due to military confinement.
After a short break in service, the applicant, then 21 years old, reenlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 25 May 1959 in pay grade E-2. He completed the training requirements and he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 120.00 (Pioneer). On 5 September 1959, he was assigned to Germany.
On 31 December 1959, the applicant harassed a female German civilian in the Post Chapel. On 2 January 1960, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was imposed against him for being disorderly and creating a disturbance in the Post Chapel. His punishment included 14 days of restriction.
On 5 March 1960, the applicant was convicted by a SPCM of wrongfully appropriating a M-38 1/4-ton truck, of a value of approximately $1,987.00, the property of the US Army, and of wrongfully making an unlawful oath in an affidavit by stating that his platoon sergeant authorized the dispatch of the vehicle for him to go off post. His sentenced included reduction to pay grade
E-1, the forfeiture of $60 pay per month for 6 months, and confinement at hard labor for 2 months.
On 20 May 1960, the applicant was convicted by a SPCM of being absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit from 12-13 April 1960, of failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed on 19 April 1960, and of breaking restriction on 23 and 24 April 1960. His sentence included the forfeiture of $35 pay per month for 4 months and confinement at hard labor for 4 months. Only that portion of the sentence that provided for confinement at hard labor for 1 month, hard labor without confinement for 3 months, and the forfeiture of $35 pay per month for 4 months was approved.
On 24 May 1960, NJP was imposed against the applicant for breaking restriction and leaving his unit in an AWOL status from 15-16 May 1960. His punishment included 14 days of restriction.
On 10 June 1960, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation in connection with a possible administrative elimination from the service. Professionally trained personnel determined the applicant suffered from "an antisocial personality; chronic, moderate; manifested by disregard for socially accepted codes of behavior and an established pattern for shirking that existed prior to service." He demonstrated a definite hostile attitude for all authority figures and, throughout the evaluation process, he picked at his cuticles and, in general, he was impolite. Furthermore, he was determined to have no disqualifying mental or physical defects sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels. He was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right. He also had the mental capacity to understand the nature of board proceedings and he was able to cooperate in his own defense. The evaluating official recommended separation under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-208 for unfitness.
The applicant was notified that an administrative separation action was being initiated against him for unfitness under the provisions of AR 635-208. On 21 June 1960, the applicant waived legal representation and his right to a hearing before a board of officers. He also declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 22 June 1960, the applicant's platoon leader (a first lieutenant) indicated in a written statement that, in addition to speaking to the applicant about the above offenses, he spoke to him on several occasions about his attitude; that the applicant required constant supervision; that he was profane; that he lied on several occasions, and; that he behaved poorly in the presence of women. The applicant's platoon leader also stated that, in view of the applicant's poor character traits and violations of discipline, he did not know of any reasons for retaining him.
On the same date, the applicant's squad leader indicated in a written statement that the applicant had goofed off on most details for the past 6 months. The only time that he did not goof off was when he [squad leader] remained in the applicant's presence and personally supervised him. The squad leader also stated the applicant was not trustworthy; that he went on sick call at least three times a week; and he was a bad influence on the squad. He no longer wanted the applicant to work for him, nor did he what him to remain in his squad.
On 23 June 1960, the applicant's commander recommended separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness.
On 30 June 1960, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness with a UD. On 2 August 1960, the applicant was separated. He had completed 1 year, 2 months, and 8 days of active military service during the enlistment period. His DD Form 214 does not show that he had any lost time. During his prior period of enlistment, he completed 4 years, 3 months and 12 days of active military service.
On 12 October 1964, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
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, in pertinent part, that members found to be unfit for further military service, and without rehabilitative potential, would be separated. A UD 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. 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’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, then in effect, with no indication of procedural errors, which would have jeopardized his rights. Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.
3. The Board has taken into consideration the applicant’s contention that he was young and immature, however, the applicant was 21 years old and met entrance qualification standards, to include age, at the time that he reenlisted. Further, the Board found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation.
4. The applicant's record does not support his contentions that he was suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder at the time of separation or that he received a gunshot wound to the leg while serving in Korea. He has provided no evidence in support of his contentions.
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
__rvo___ __rjo___ __ecp___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003085254 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20031009 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19600802 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-208 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A51.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.5000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | 2001061182C070421
On 25 January 1961, while the applicant was confined at the Special Processing Detachment, he underwent a mental status evaluation by professionally trained personnel and was determined to be suffering from a passive aggressive reaction that existed prior to service. On 2 March 1961, the applicant was discharged for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, with a UD. In light of his good post-service conduct, and considering the nature of his indisciplines while on active...
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...
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 | CY2003 | 2003090479C070212
He states he needs his discharge upgraded so he can "get some of the medical help that [he] should have gotten then." In July 1962 the applicant was again seen by medical personnel for back pain. Therefore, the Board does not excuse the applicant's failure to timely file within the time prescribed by law and this application is denied for that reason.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004845
On 2 December 1959, the applicant's company commander recommended the applicant be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness) with a UD. On 18 December 1959, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 with a UD and reduction to pay grade E-1. _______ _ X______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of...
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 | 2002068792C070402
On 31 October 1960, the applicant was recommended for separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 with a UD. On 8 December 1960, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's discharge with the issuance of a UD. The Board concluded that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050015643C070206
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 August 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050015643 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 4 January 1960, the applicant acknowledged that he had been advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness. The separation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004105854C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. A review of the records fail 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. The evidence of record shows that he was convicted by two summary court-martials and by one special court-martial and that he had NJP imposed against him twice as a result of the offenses that he committed.