| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Member | ||
| Mr. Ronald J. Weaver | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be changed to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his alcohol problems started prior to his entering the Army and continued during his active duty tenure. He states that alcoholism is a genetic disease that has caused him many problems. He further comments that he was a young Vietnam era veteran whose decision making process was flawed. In support of his application, he submits a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 29 July 1971, the applicant entered the Army for a period of 2 years. The highest rank he attained during his tenure on active duty tenure was private/E-2 (PV2), and his record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.
The applicant’s record shows that he completed basic training and attended advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Gordon, Georgia. It also reveals an extensive disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of non-judicial punishment (NJP) on the following three separate occasions for the offenses indicated: 21 October 1971, for disobeying a lawful order; 20 January 1972, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 31 October 1971 through 12 December 1971; and 17 February 1972, for being AWOL from 11 February 1972 through
13 February 1972. In addition, he was convicted by a special court-martial on the following two dates for the offenses indicated: 30 March 1972, for being AWOL from 19 February 1972 through 12 March 1972; and 17 August 1972, for being AWOL from 8 May 1972 through 16 July 1972.
On 9 November 1972, the applicant’s unit commander notified him that a separation action was being initiated to eliminate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness. The commander stated that the basis for the separation action was the applicant’s frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities. The unit commander further stated that the applicant had ample opportunity to complete a course of instruction commensurate with his ability and his performance of duty had been unsatisfactory due to AWOL related misconduct. Finally, the unit commander indicated that further rehabilitative efforts would be useless.
The applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation action notification and consulted legal counsel. Legal counsel advised him of the basis for the contemplated separation action, the effects of an UD, and of the rights available to him. Subsequent to this counseling, the applicant completed his election of rights by waiving the following rights: consideration of his case by a board of officers, personal appearance before a board of officers, and consulting counsel; and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
The separation action was approved by the appropriate authority and on
14 December 1972, the applicant was discharged from the Army with an UD. At the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 8 months and 6 days of creditable active military service, and he had accrued 250 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.
On 21 November 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board determined that the applicant’s UD was proper and equitable and it denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel who were found unfit or unsuitable for further military service. 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 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. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that alcohol problems, a genetic disease, contributed to his misconduct. However, it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim, and even if true, this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to support the requested relief. His separation was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations in effect at the time and the type of discharge he received accurately reflects his overall short and undistinguished record of service. 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 fully protected throughout the separation process.
2. 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.
3. 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
__LS__ _RJW___ __CLG__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003085334 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1971214 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-212 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Unfitness |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 853 | 144.9319 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018933
On 22 June 1972, his immediate commander recommended the FSM's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability. However, based on changes to Army Regulation 635-212 that stated, in part, service members diagnosed with a personality disorder and separated for unsuitability may be granted an honorable discharge, the applicant was granted partial relief and the FSM's discharge was upgraded to an honorable discharge. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000738C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. The applicant's contention that his discharge and RE code should be upgraded, and that his SPN code should be changed based on his overall record of service, and his excellent post service conduct, and the supporting evidence he submitted were carefully...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090196C070212
The applicant states that after he was discharged, he continued to use alcohol and drugs. A review of the available records fails to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-years statute of limitations. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091818C070212
This provision of law allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of justice to do so. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it would not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000528C070205
The applicant's record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 2 January 1970. 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 | CY2004 | 20040001792C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD) and correction of the number of days of time lost recorded on his separation document (DD Form 214). On 4 March 1971, the applicant was discharged accordingly. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year statute of limitations prescribed by law.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066942C070402
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed the applicant’s case and after determining that his discharge was proper and equitable, it denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge. As requested by the applicant, the Board considered his contention that his discharge should be upgraded in order to allow him to receive veterans benefits based on the time he served his country.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075469C070403
The Board considered the following evidence: On 31 July 1972, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness with a UD. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002075469SUFFIXRECONYYYYMMDDDATE BOARDED2002/09/10TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UD)DATE OF DISCHARGE1972/07/31DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-212 .
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090107C070212
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that the FSM was 18 years of age at the time of his discharge, and he waived his right to counsel or to receive help in understanding the ramifications of accepting the discharge. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The FSM’s military records show: An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078516C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002078516SUFFIXRECONYYYYMMDDDATE BOARDED2003/01/28TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UD)DATE OF DISCHARGE19710421DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-212 .