| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Robert L. Duecaster | Member | ||
| Ms. Marla J. Troup | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be changed to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he should have received a GD at time of his separation from the Army. In support of his application, he submits a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 28 February 1966, he entered the Army for a period of 3 years. He was trained and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11H (Infantry Direct Fire Crewman), and the highest rank he attained during his active duty tenure was specialist four (SP4). His record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.
The applicant’s record does document an extensive disciplinary history that includes the following two convictions by special court-martial on the dates and for the offenses indicated: 9 May 1968, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 18 August 67 to 25 April 1968; and 21 March 1969, for being AWOL from
16 June 1968 to 13 February 1969. The applicant also was AWOL from
30 May 1969 to 3 February 1970.
On 27 February 1970, the applicant’s unit commander notified him that a separation action was being initiated to eliminate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness. The commander stated that the basis for the separation action was the applicant’s repeated and lengthy periods of AWOL, excessive time lost in the service, resistance to authority and regulations, and a pattern of behavior which rendered him a complete loss to the service.
The applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation action notification and consulted legal counsel. After being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, the effects of an UD, and of the rights available to him, he completed an election of rights. In his rights election statement, the applicant waived his right to have his case considered by a board of officers. He also waived his right to personally appear before a board of officers, and his right to consulting counsel. Finally, the applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 13 April 1970, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge and directed that he receive an UD. On 17 April 1970, the applicant was discharged accordingly. At the time of his discharge, the applicant had completed a total of 8 months of creditable active military service, and he had accrued 904 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge 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 who were found unfit or unsuitable for further military service. 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, and it is concluded:
1. As requested by the applicant, the Board considered his contention that he should have received a GD at the time of his separation from the Army. However, it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s separation processing was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations in effect at the time. The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and that his rights were fully protected throughout the discharge process. It also finds that the discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service and that it was appropriate based on his extensive record of misconduct.
3. 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.
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.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ______ GRANT
________ ________ ______ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__RJW__ __MT__ __RLD _ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016516
On 8 June 1970, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness and directed the applicant receive a UD. There is no evidence of record to show that the applicant ever submitted a request to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. The record further shows that after being counseled on his rights, the applicant voluntarily elected to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075234C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 18 December 1974, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. On 18 December 1974, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013052
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a GD is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The record further shows that after being counseled on his rights, the applicant voluntarily elected to waive his right to consideration of his case by a board of officers.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011758
The separation authority could authorize an HD or a general under honorable conditions discharge (GD) if supported by the member's overall record of service; however, a UD was normally considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) is the current regulation governing enlisted separations provides guidance for issuing an HD in paragraph 3-7a. Given the applicant's disciplinary history, his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004099951C070208
The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge in 2003, which was past that board's 15-year statute of limitations. The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Shirley L. Powell ______________________ CHAIRPERSON INDEX |CASE ID |AR2004099951 | |SUFFIX | | |RECON | | |DATE BOARDED |20040817 | |TYPE OF DISCHARGE |(UD) | |DATE OF DISCHARGE |19700610 | |DISCHARGE AUTHORITY...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002627
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a GD is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. There is no evidence to confirm the applicant's claim that his 1SG told him to leave the Army without any formal or official separation processing as required by regulation.
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 | CY2002 | 2002070208C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On an unknown date, the applicant voluntarily requested an assignment in Vietnam. On 5 February 1970, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076702C070215
He also claims that the recurrent memories from the war were more than he could handle, and he was on strong pain medication for frequent headaches. On 5 October 1973, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed the applicant’s case and after determining that his discharge was proper and equitable, it denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058663C070421
On 21 August 1970, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness and directed that the applicant be furnished a general discharge. On 25 February 1974 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade to honorable. The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included four nonjudicial punishments, four special court-martial convictions and 640 days lost due...