| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern III | Member | |
| Ms. Mae M. Bullock | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his request to upgrade his discharge to honorable or general.
APPLICANT STATES: In a 30 December 2002 letter to a Member of Congress (MC), the applicant took exception to this Board's conclusions that he received an undesirable discharge for misconduct because of a conviction of a felony and being held by civil authorities. He states that he has been trying to have his discharge upgraded since 1998. He recounts his experiences in the Army, and states that he was in combat in Korea until his younger brother was killed. After his brother was killed, he was assigned to escort the body back home. He states that his service record in the states was not very good; however, he served overseas without any problems. He spent over six years in the service, and deserves something better than an undesirable discharge.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 23 January 2001 (AR2000046732).
On 17 February 2001 in response to his 9 April 2001 application to this Board, the applicant was informed that he had not submitted any new evidence that was not previously available to the Board; consequently, there was no basis for resubmitting his request to the Board. He was also informed that police reports from the Colorado Springs area did not have a bearing on whether or not he was arrested or convicted of a crime in some other area (AR2001056082).
Army Regulation 615-366, dated 5 February 1954 provides for discharge of enlisted personnel for misconduct (fraudulent entry, AWOL, desertion, conviction by civil court). Section II of that regulation pertains to AWOL and desertion, and states that an individual who is to be discharged under that section will be given an undesirable discharge. Section IV of that regulation pertains to conviction by civil court.
Change 2 of the above regulation, dated 3 August 1954, provides for entries on the DD Form 214 (separation document), and states that when an individual is discharged for AWOL, trial waived, the entry on DD Form 214 will be "Section II, AR 615-366-SPN 72." The entry for conviction by civil court will be "Section IV, AR 615-366-SPN 73."
Special Order Number 139, dated 6 August 1954, does show that the applicant was discharged effective on 11 August 1954 with an undesirable discharge - under the provisions of Section II, Army Regulation 615-366, SPN 72. That order, however, does not relate the reason for his 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. As indicated in the 23 January 2001 Board case, the applicant's records were not available for review, but were probably lost in the 1973 fire at St. Louis.
2. The only record available that is germane to this case is the above-cited order discharging the applicant on 11 August 1954 with an undesirable discharge. Unfortunately, the 23 January 2001 Board misconstrued the reason for his discharge. Section II of Army Regulation 615-366 pertains to discharge for AWOL, not conviction by civil court as indicated in the original Board case. The applicant's contention that he was not incarcerated in any civil confinement facility during that period is correct. He was not discharged because of a felony conviction by a civil court, but because of AWOL. This error is regretted.
3. Nonetheless, and as indicated in the previous Board case, the Board presumes that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law and regulations in effect at that time. The Board notes that a discharge for AWOL under the provisions of the cited regulation also mandated an undesirable discharge. There is no evidence and the applicant has not provided any to indicate that his undesirable discharge was in error or that there was an injustice done to him.
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 in the characterization of his discharge.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__AAO__ __TBR___ __MMB _ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003086036 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030807 |
| 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 | CY2011 | 20110015318
The civil court sentenced him to imprisonment for 5 to 10 years. However, his service records show on 1 September 1955, the Commanding General, Headquarters, Infantry Center, Fort Benning, GA, ordered the applicant discharged under the provisions of section IV, Army Regulation 615-366 (Enlisted Personnel Discharges) by reason of civil conviction with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 13 November 1962, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his petition for an upgrade...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011567
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, 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. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant a general discharge or an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070009148
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. He states that he enlisted on 11 November 1950 and was separated with an undesirable discharge for a civil conviction. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050006059C070206
The applicant’s military records are not available to the Board for review. In May 1946, the applicant requested a review of his discharge by the Secretary of War’s Discharge Review Board (DRB). However, there is no evidence nor has the applicant presented any evidence to support his allegation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005993
The FSM's military records are not available for review. However, his DD Form 214 indicates his service was characterized as undesirable and shows in: a. item 6 (Effective Date of Separation), he was discharged on 27 July 1951; b. item 8 (Reason and Authority for Separation), his separation authority was Army Regulation 615-366 (Enlisted Personnel Discharge), section IV, by reason of misconduct conviction by civil court and the entry "3rd Ind, Headquarters TIC 17 Jul 51"; c. item 22 (Net...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011116
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. _______ _ X _______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019025
Also available are the following: certificate of birth for R____ E____ R____; physical and mental examination for R____, R____ J____; WD AGO Form 53-59 (Enlisted Record and Report of Separation Undesirable Discharge) for R____, R____ J.; numerous discharge related documents; summary of neuropsychiatric evaluations of R____, R____ J., dated 1 November 1948; Mental Hygiene Consultation Services, 9th Infantry Division, Fort Dix, New Jersey, progress notes, dated 6 October 1949; certificate of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072818C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. However, the evidence of record clearly shows that he underwent a mental status evaluation and a psychiatrist determined that he able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right. He was convicted twice by a special court-martial of being AWOL and he continued to go AWOL until he had 253 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040002755C070208
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 March 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20040002755 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 petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a discharge upgrade. Had the applicant served in the Army of the 1960's during the Vietnam War, instead of in the Army of the 1950's during the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | AR20050016538C070206
The applicant’s military records are not available to the Board for review. Meanwhile, the commander submitted a request to have the applicant appear before a board of officers to determine if he should be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 for unfitness due to undesirable habits or traits of character. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within...