| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Luis Almodova | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member | ||
| Mr. Harry B. Oberg | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general (under honorable) discharge or to an honorable discharge.
The applicant did not submit a statement, an argument, or a justification for the upgrade of his undesirable discharge.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years on 13 May 1968. He successfully completed basic combat training at Fort Benning, Georgia. He was assigned to Fort Gordon, Georgia, to undergo advanced individual training (AIT) in Army Career Group 31, Field Communications Equipment Maintenance.
While in AIT, the applicant absented himself without proper authority on 13 August and remained absent until 19 August 1968. On 25 August 1968, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for this absence. The imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $34.00 per month for two months, restriction to the company area for 45 days, and 45 days extra duty.
On 20 November 1968, the applicant was referred to and was evaluated at the Mental Hygiene Consultation Service at Fort Gordon, Georgia. The evaluation was requested because of impending court-martial action. In this evaluation, the applicant was found to be, "an immature individual who is having difficulty adjusting to the Army. Specific conflicts center around negative feelings towards authority. Rehabilitation potential is fair with individual counseling by a social work technician." This evaluation also revealed no evidence of any mental condition, which would warrant consideration for treatment, hospitalization, or other disposition via medical channels. The applicant was found to be capable of distinguishing right from wrong and adhering to the right. He possessed sufficient mental capacity to act in his own behalf in administrative procedures deemed necessary by command.
On 27 November 1968, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of absenting himself without proper authority on 3 September until about 8 October 1968 and 19 October to 16 November 1968. He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 6 months and to forfeit $46.00 per month for 6 months. The sentence was approved and ordered executed on the same date; but, that part of the sentence adjudging confinement at hard labor for 6 month was suspended for 6 months.
On 10 December 1968, a DA Form 268, Report of Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions, was prepared. The basis for suspension of favorable personnel actions was the command's initiation of separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-212.
On 10 December 1968, his commander advised the applicant that he was recommending that he [the applicant] be discharged from the Army before the expiration of his term of service under the provisions of AR 635-212, for unfitness.
On 11 December 1968, the applicant was advised by counsel that proceedings to discharge him from the Army, under the provisions of AR 635-212, for unfitness, were being contemplated. The applicant acknowledged the contemplated action on the same date and waived consideration of his case by and a personal appearance before a board of officers. The applicant elected not to make a statement but acknowledged that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in the event a general discharge under honorable conditions was issued him. The applicant also understood that, as a result of issuance of an undesirable discharge under conditions other than honorable, he might be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.
On 12 December 1968, the applicant's commanding officer recommended that the applicant be discharged from the Army prior to the expiration of his current period of service under the provisions of AR 635-212, by reason of unfitness. Elimination was recommended because of his repeated infractions of military rules and regulations with apparent failure to profit from military discipline. The applicant had been formally counseled on 18, 22, and 26 November and 2 December 1968, according to the recommendation for administrative elimination action. His conduct and efficiency rating were both unsatisfactory. The commander recommended that further rehabilitation and counseling be waived.
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.
On 20 December 1968, the appropriate authority, a major general, approved the applicant's discharge and directed that an undesirable discharge be issued.
The applicant was discharged on 27 December 1968, with an undesirable discharge, characterized as under other than honorable conditions, in the rank
and pay grade, Private, E-1, after completing 5 months, and 6 days creditable active military service. On the date of his discharge, the applicant had accrued 70 days of lost time due to AWOL.
AR 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.
AR 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.
Paragraph 3-7, in the above cited regulation, also provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
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 the above requirement.
2. The applicant’s discharge proceedings appear to have been conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time of his separation.
3. The Board noted that the applicant was diagnosed by a psychiatrist and was found to be, "an immature individual who is having difficulty adjusting to the Army with specific conflicts which center around negative feelings towards authority. This evaluation also revealed no evidence of any mental condition, which would warrant consideration for treatment, hospitalization, or other disposition via medical channels. The applicant was found to be capable of distinguishing right from wrong and adhering to the right. He possessed sufficient mental capacity to
act in his own behalf in administrative procedures deemed necessary by command.
4. The Board further noted that despite the examining psychiatrist's opinion that the applicant's rehabilitation potential was fair, with individual counseling by a social work technician, the applicant's commander recommended that further counseling and rehabilitation efforts be waived.
5. The Board carefully reviewed the applicant’s record of service. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
6. 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 date of his enlistment in the Army. In view of these instances of misconduct, an undesirable discharge does not appear to be unduly harsh.
7. The applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. Through his misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to either an general (under honorable) or a fully honorable discharge.
8. 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
___hbo__ __tl_____ __ao____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003085636 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/08/28 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1968/12/27 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-212 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Unfitness |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 360 | 144.0000 |
| 2. 583 | 144.5000/ A51.00 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083902C070212
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. On 3 November 1967, the applicant's unit commander notified the applicant that he was recommending that he [the applicant] be discharged from the Army for unfitness under the provisions of AR 635-212, Paragraphs 6a(1). Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, defines a general discharge as a separation from the Army under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091657C070212
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 7 October 1969, the appeal was denied and the punishment was ordered executed as presented. The request for the applicant's discharge submitted by command is not in the applicant's service personnel records; however, two endorsements related to the action are present.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070005773
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 September 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070005773 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. The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 August 1966, at the age of 17 years, 5 months, and 5 days. The evidence of record shows that the applicant had a pattern of shirking by having gone...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065565C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable or general. On 29 January 1968 the applicant’s commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be discharged from the Army and that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
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 | 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000399C070208
The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show he was not absent without leave (AWOL) for 399 days and that he served at least 19 months of overseas service. On 9 April 1969, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from on or about 6 December 1968 to on or about 15 February 1969. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief and to excuse failure to timely file.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060016932C071029
On 23 February 1968, the applicant completed a mental status evaluation. On 19 July 1968, the applicant’s company commander initiated separation action under Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness. There is no evidence to show the applicant was mentally incapable of knowing that he was wrong when he went AWOL.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003502C070205
He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 17 November 1965 and served in Vietnam until 10 May 1966, when he was transferred to Fort Gordon, Georgia. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018970
The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge under honorable conditions. This Army regulation provides that when separation for unfitness was warranted, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate. The applicant contends that his discharge should be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions because the problem with his feet became a physical and mental issue and he could not continue to serve in the Army.