| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member | ||
| Mr. Frank C. Jones, II | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was not properly represented and did not see his appointed lawyer until the beginning of his trial. He also claims that he was not allowed to tell his side of the story. He further indicates that he was sentenced to three months confinement and a forfeiture pf $60.00 pay, but actually spent six months in the stockade. He goes on to state that he was young, uneducated, and did not fully understand the situation at the time. He also claims that he now has physical problems that are the result of injuries he received to his knees while serving in the Army. In support of his application, he submits a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214) and an Extract of Military Records of Previous Convictions (DD Form 493).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant’s military records were lost or destroyed in the fire that occurred at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973. The information herein was gleaned from a copy of DD Form 214 and
DD Form 493.
The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows that he entered the Army for three years on 7 July 1954. He was trained and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 117.07 (Light Weapons Infantryman). The record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition during his active duty tenure.
The DD Form 493 on file confirms the applicant was tried and convicted by summary court-martial on the following two separate occasions for the offenses indicated: 29 November 1955, for being absent without leave (AWOL) on
11 November 1955; and 21 June 1956, for being drunk and disorderly in a public place and for breaking restriction. This document also shows that on
30 December 1957, a special court-martial found the applicant guilty of being AWOL from on or about 16 September to on or about 14 November 1957.
A separation packet on the applicant, containing the specific facts and circumstances pertaining to his discharge processing is not on file. However, there is a properly constituted DD Form 214 on file that contains the authority and reason for the applicant’s discharge.
The applicant’s DD Form 214 confirms that on 31 January 1958, he was administratively discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, by reason of unfitness, and that he received an UD. This separation document also verifies that at the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 3 years,
2 months, and 10 days of creditable active military service, and he had accrued 137 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness who possessed undesirable habits and traits of character. The regulation provided for the separation of enlisted personnel under this provision when there was evidence of an antisocial or amoral trend, chronic alcoholism, drug addiction, pathological lying, or misconduct. An undesirable discharge 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 and carefully considered the applicant’s contentions that his discharge should be upgraded because he was inadequately represented by legal counsel, he was young and uneducated, and that he suffers from physical problems as a result of being injured during his Army service. However, it finds insufficient evidence to support these claims. Further, the personal issues raised even if true are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to his discharge.
2. The specific facts and circumstances surrounding the events that led to the applicant’s discharge are not on file. However, there is a properly constituted separation document on file. This document contains the authority and reason for his discharge and was authenticated by the applicant with his signature on the date of his separation. Therefore, the Board presumes government regularity in the discharge process.
3. Lacking independent evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and that the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout his discharge processing. Further, the Board concludes that the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service and is appropriate given his disciplinary history and undistinguished record of service. Therefore, the Board concludes that the requested relief is not warranted in this case.
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
__MKP__ __REB__ __FCJ __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003086694 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19580131 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-208 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Unfitness |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 967 | 144.0033 |
| 2. 969 | 144.0035 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070006098
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 August 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070006098 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 26 February 1957, the applicant's immediate commander requested the applicant appear before a board of officers to determine whether he should be separated for constantly committing offenses and lacking the ability...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070006021
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 September 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070006021 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 requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. However, his record shows that he was convicted by a summary court-martial and a special court-martial, received...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088369C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He states that he was instructed to sign the blank form and that it was not until two years ago that he ordered a copy of his military records and discovered that the ORD Form 493 contained his initials. The psychiatrist recommended that he be separated from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060017614C071029
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 June 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060017614 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 states he was having a conflict with Sergeant W___ six months before he was separated. He was 19 years old at that time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000640C070208
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. Records show that the applicant was 19 years and 4 months old at the time his active service began and 22 years and 6 months old at the time of his discharge. Evidence shows that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time and that the ADRB later upgraded the applicant's discharge from Under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050006899C070206
The applicant states, in effect, that his conduct prior to his military service and after his military service warrants an upgrade of his discharge. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The applicant’s record reveals an extensive disciplinary history that included three summary court-martial convictions, one special court-martial conviction, and 52 days of lost time due to AWOL.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004101856C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge (GD) be upgraded to a medical discharge. On 17 April 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board granted the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. Therefore, no basis has been established for correcting his record to show he was separated for medical reasons.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070004029
The applicant has provided insufficient evidence to show that his discharge was unjust. The evidence shows that the applicant's undesirable discharge was upgraded to general, under honorable conditions, on 20 December 1974. The evidence shows that the applicant's undesirable discharge was not upgraded to an honorable discharge, only a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006925
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. He was ordered to active duty for training (ACDUTRA) at Fort Ord, California on 31 August 1956.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004766C070206
This case is being considered using reconstructed records that primarily consist of a DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States) and the documentation from the Army Discharge Review Board consideration for upgrade of his discharge. The applicant’s separation document also confirms that on 17 April 1956, he was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 by reason of unfitness and that he received an undesirable discharge. On 22 March 1957,...