| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deyon D. Battle | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member | ||
| Mr. Harry B. Oberg | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge for the period covering 27 January 1965 through 28 February 1968 be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That when he returned from Vietnam, he was deeply depressed and he drank a lot of whiskey, which caused him to make many mistakes. He states that he found out that his wife had left him for someone else and he believed that the whole world was against Vietnam veterans. He states that if he had been afforded counseling, maybe things would have turned out differently for him; however, he never had any type of counseling at all. He goes on to state that he found a credit card at the gas station and he forged the person’s name to get gas for his car on three separate occasions. He states that the amount of gas that he purchased with the found credit card totaled on $20.00 and that if he had not been drinking heavily, none of the incidents would have occurred. He further states that the times that he went absent without leave (AWOL) was time that he spent looking for his wife and drinking alcohol. He concludes by stating that he is now living a moral and positive life as he has not drank alcohol in almost 10 years and that he would like his discharge upgraded.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
After completing 3 years, 2 months and 28 days of honorable service in the Army as a light weapons infantryman, he reenlisted in the Army in Dallas, Texas, for an additional 3 years on 27 January 1965. On 1 May 1965, he was transferred to Vietnam.
Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 10 February 1965, for being AWOL from 2 February until 3 February 1965. His punishment consisted of extra duty.
On 7 May 1966, he returned to the Continental United States and was assigned to Fort Polk, Louisiana.
On 9 September 1966, NJP was imposed against him for being AWOL from 6 September until 9 September 1966. His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade and extra duty.
On 19 October 1966, he was transferred to Fort Hood, Texas.
The applicant was convicted by a special court-martial on 14 March 1967, of being AWOL from 26 October until 31 October 1966 and from 31 October 1966 until 16 February 1967. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 3 months and a forfeiture of pay.
On 6 April 1967, the applicant was tried and convicted by civil authorities of three counts of forgery. He was sentenced to 3 years in a Texas correctional facility.
On 29 July 1967, NJP was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 24 July until 26 July 1967. His punishment consisted of restriction.
A board of officers convened on 25 January 1968, for the purpose of determining whether or not the applicant should be discharged from the Army prior to his normal expiration of term of service. The board proceedings are unavailable for review by this Board. The facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are also not available for review by this Board. However, his Report of Transfer or Discharge (DD Form 214) shows that he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for misconduct based on his conviction by civil authorities. He had completed 6 years and 11 days of total active service and he was furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-206, then in effect, outlined the conditions and procedures for the discharge of enlisted personnel for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.
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 administrative separation appears to have been accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore appear to be appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
3. The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions. However, they are unsubstantiated by the evidence of record. There is no evidence of record that shows that his acts of misconduct were the result of alcohol use or that he was
going AWOL to look for his wife. The evidence of record does show that he went AWOL on numerous occasions even after having NJP imposed against him and being convicted by a special court-martial. He was discharged as a result of his conviction by civil authorities for committing the act of forgery on three separate occasions and considering his numerous acts of misconduct, it does not appear that his undesirable discharge was too severe.
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
___hbo__ __tl ____ __ao____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003087436 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/08/28 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19680228 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-206 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | 262/MISCONDUCT |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 627 | 144.6000/CIVIL CONVICTION |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008477
However, a Report of Proceedings of Board of Officers, dated 9 May 1967, states the recommendations of the Board of Officers that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 and issued an undesirable discharge are approved. 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. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007498
His Army service from 1963 to 1965 was very honorable. On 17 August 1967, the applicant was notified by his commander of the intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations Discharge Misconduct) for his conviction by a civil court. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051378C070420
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 applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075141C070403
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. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records were not available to the Board for review. The applicant’s service records were not available to the Board, and there was no information available on his over three years of prior active service performed prior to the enlistment under review.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010040C070205
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 31 October 1966 with an undesirable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for conviction by civil court. 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. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001303
On 1 June 1967, the separation authority approved the recommendation to discharge the applicant from the Army under the provisions of section VI of Army Regulation 635-206 and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 5 June 1967, the applicant was accordingly discharged. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of section VI of Army Regulation 635-206, due to conviction by a civil court and he was issued an Undesirable Discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010132
The applicant's available records do not show the applicant's punishment for this misconduct. He had completed 2 years, 5 months, and 23 days of creditable active service and he had 187 days of lost time. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015927
The applicant requested consideration of his case by a board of officers to determine if he should be discharged. When such separation was warranted, an undesirable discharge was considered appropriate. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068855C070402
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 applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019762
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 February 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100019762 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On an unknown date, the applicant's chain of command recommended the applicant be discharged by reason of unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability), then in effect. On 10 March 1976, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206...