| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Yvonne J. Foskey . | Analyst |
| Mr. Robert L. Duecaster | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Member | ||
| Ms. Linda D. Simmons | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was unaware that he could apply to upgrade his discharge. He claims that he was unjustly given an UD due to extenuating circumstances. He claims that while he was serving his mother had surgery, for which he was granted emergency leave. He also claims that his mother ended up bedridden with no one but his elderly grandparents to care for her. His grandparents were pressuring him to get home so he elected to accept his discharge. He further states that 9 months and 16 days after he was released from the Army, his mother died.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 14 February 1967, he was inducted and entered active duty in the Army. He successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training (AIT) at
Fort Benning, Georgia. Upon completion of AIT, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 94B (Cook).
The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private first class and that the only awards and decorations he received were the National Defense Service Medal and the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar. It also verifies that during his tenure on active duty, he accrued
95 days of lost time due to being absent without leave (AWOL) and in military confinement.
On 6 February 1968, the applicant was found guilty pursuant to his pleas of being AWOL from on or about 29 October 1967 until on or about 11 January 1968, by a special court-martial. The resultant sentence was a forfeiture of $30.00 per month for five months.
On 14 February 1968, the applicant was notified by his unit commander that action was being initiated to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness due to frequent incidents of misconduct.
The applicant consulted with legal counsel, and after being advised of the basis of the contemplated separation action and the effects of an UD, he completed his election of rights. He elected to waive consideration of his case by a board of officers and representation by counsel. He also elected not to submit a statement of rebuttal in his own behalf.
On 23 February 1968, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge and directed that he receive an UD. On 1 March 1968, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The DD 214 issued to the applicant on the date of his separation confirms that he completed a total of 9 months and 14 days of creditable active military service, and that he accrued a total of 95 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.
The record gives no indication that the applicant requested an upgrade to his discharge from the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15 year statue of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 6a (1) 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 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 applicant’s contention that the reason he went AWOL and accepted the UD was so that he could go home and care for his mother was carefully considered. However, this factor was not considered sufficiently mitigating to support the requested relief given the applicant’s short and undistinguished record of service.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the law and regulations applicable at the time. Further, the character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.
3. The record also shows that the applicant consulted with legal counsel and after being advised of the impact of the UD, he elected to waive his right to have his case considered by a board of officers. Lacking evidence to the contrary, it is determined that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.
4. 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.
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
__JHL_ _LDS___ __RLD _ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003086283 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/11 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1968/03/01 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-212. . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | ) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088370C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, and after being advised of the basis of the contemplated separation action and the effects of an UD, he completed his election of rights. On 18 March 1970, the applicant was discharged accordingly.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9610577C070209
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. His punishment for this offense was 7 days of restriction and 14 days of extra duty. The record also has a DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) authenticated by the applicant which indicates the applicant received a UD, under the provisions of AR 635-212 for unfitness, after completing 2 years, 1 month, and 7 days of active...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707261
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The commander cited as his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707261C070209
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The Board considered the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084977C070212
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: An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011088C071029
The applicant requests, in effect, affirmation of the 1977 Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) decision to upgrade his undesirable discharge (UD) to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) under the provisions of the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP). The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice that occurred on 23 October 1978, the date the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) voted not to affirm the 1977 upgrade action of the SDRB. However, the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004347
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). It further shows that at the time he had completed 2 months and 5 days of creditable active service and had accrued 221 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement. Chapter 4 of the same regulation further states that the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) evaluates all cases of physical disability equitably for the Soldier and the Army.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064909C070421
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. However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the Board found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.
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 | CY2002 | 2002073349C070403
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: In addition, there is no evidence of record showing that he ever applied for a hardship discharge; and even if he had, the Board finds this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief. The evidence of record shows the applicant was separated for unfitness and reduced to the lowest enlisted grade based on an extensive history of misconduct.