| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred M. Eichorn | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | ||
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That at the time he enlisted, jobs were hard to find and he lied when asked if he was married. He goes on to state that he completed his training and was transferred to Germany. While in Germany his baby died and his wife requested he come home on emergency leave. It was at this time that it was discovered that he had lied and he was discharged for fraudulent enlistment because he had concealed his dependents. He goes on to state that he admits he lied, but everyone has at some point and all he wants is to be buried in a National Cemetery. In support of his application he submits a copy of his report of separation (DD Form 214).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center at St. Louis, Missouri, which destroyed millions of service records. However, the DD Form 214 provided by the applicant shows:
He enlisted in Knoxville, Tennessee, at the age of 21, on 6 April 1956, for a period of 3 years. He completed his training as a pioneer, was advanced to the pay grade of E-2 on 6 August 1956 and was transferred to the 814th Engineer Company (Float Bridge) in Germany.
On 11 January 1957, just 3 months and 8 days after his arrival in Germany, the applicant was returned to Fort Dix, New Jersey, where he was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, for misconduct - fraudulent entry (due to concealment of his dependents). He had served 8 months and 6 days of total active service.
There is no evidence available to show if 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, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Section I of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that upon discovery of concealment of information at enlistment, commanders will process the individual for discharge. However, if the individual's general qualifications are such that he is an asset to the service, the unit commander may request to waive the right to discharge him for fraudulent enlistment. Personnel who were not granted a waiver were processed for discharge and were required to be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
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. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant's administrative discharge was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no violations or procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.
3. The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board. However, the applicant's commander had the latitude to request that his discharge be waived if he thought it appropriate to do so. Therefore, because the facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not available for review by the Board, the applicant's explanation in and of itself is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
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
____fe __ __kh____ __mm___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003087910 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/09/16 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1957/01/11 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-206 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Misconduct/fraud entry |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 644 | 144.6200/a62.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02400
On 23 October 2006 and 28 November 2006, SAF/MRBR informed the applicant that his records had been destroyed by a 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), St. Louis, Missouri, and requested his assistance to reconstruct missing documents, facts and circumstances associated with his discharge. His assistance was requested, however, he did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing; therefore, no corrective action...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076266C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 28 August 1972, the applicant was also notified by his commander that he was being recommended for separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, for fraudulent entry, based on his concealment of his prior service in the Marine Corps (1 September to 30 September 1970), at the time of his enlistment. He provided discharge documents from the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010504
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 18 NOVEMBER 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080010504 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014003
On 25 July 1961, the separation authority approved the findings and directed that the applicant be discharged with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. However, on 3 August 1961, a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations-Discharge-Misconduct (Fraudulent Entry, Conviction by Civil Court, AWOL, Desertion) was initiated based on concealment of prior service. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Active Duty Enlisted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075511C070403
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. There is no evidence in the available records that shows that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8404174
He applied for a hardship discharge due to his father’s illness and because he did not list his father as a dependent he was discharged for fraudulent enlistment and issued an undesirable discharge certificate. Counsel for the applicant contends that a fraudulent enlistment under the provisions (UP) of AR 615-366 in 1949 was recommended by commanders for any of seven disqualifying reasons, none of which pertain to the applicant. Because his records were apparently lost or destroyed in the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080000534
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's military record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-1, on 10 October 1960, for 3 years. The evidence of record shows the applicant was recommended for discharge by reason of fraudulent entry.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020654
c. The applicant was being considered for elimination from military service for fraudulent entry under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations Discharge Misconduct). His service records do not indicate he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The evidence of record shows the applicant entered active service on 19 March 1968 and was discharged on 26 February 1969, a period of 11...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073433C070403
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. There is no indication in the available records to show 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 | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016767
The applicants military records are not available to the Board for review. However, his DD Form 214 for the period ending 3 June 1957 shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations - Discharge -Misconduct (Fraudulent Entry, Conviction by Civil Court, AWOL, Desertion)), section IV, by reason of being convicted or adjudged a juvenile offender by a civil court during current term of active military service with issuance of a DD Form 258A...