| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. William D. Powers | Member | ||
| Mr. Frank C. Jones | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an under honorable conditions discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the petty offense for which he was tried and convicted was so trivial that it was ultimately deleted from the civil records. He states there is no evidence in the Colorado legal system that substantiates the reason given for his discharge. In support of his application, he provides civil and police records from the State of Colorado, and character references attesting to his post service conduct.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant’s military records were not available to the Board for review. A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members’ records at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973. It is believed his records were lost in that fire.
A Certificate of Military Service (R6-Form 6954), issued on 6 June 1984, confirms that the applicant was a member of the Regular Army from 15 August 1940 through 10 September 1942. This document also verifies that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions, and held the rank of private at the time.
A United States Government Office Memorandum, dated 14 June 1946, issued by an adjudicator working the applicant’s request for a service connected disability confirms that the applicant was separated from the Army UOTHC based on his civil conviction by the State of Colorado on 29 August 1942.
The available evidence also includes two letters from the Executive Secretary of this Board, dated 6 February 1984 and 29 February 1988 respectively, which advised the applicant that it was impossible for the Board to make a fair, impartial, and equitable determination in his case because of the absence of his military records, and the case was administratively closed without referral to the Board.
The applicant provides a police records check from the Denver Police Department, Denver, Colorado, dated 9 July 1987, which indicated that there was no arrest record on the applicant. This records check also indicated that there may have been other documents on file that were provided by the court; however, by law these could not be discussed.
The applicant also provides character references from the business manager of a local union chapter of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers that confirms the applicant was a member of the local chapter for 28 years and during this period no contractor ever complained about his work performance. He also provides a character reference from a co-worker and friend who attests to his dependability and conscientiousness.
Army Regulation 615-360, in effect at the time, set forth the policy and procedures for separation of enlisted personnel. It specifically provided for the separation of enlisted personnel by reason of civil conviction.
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 the applicant’s claim that his discharge should be upgraded because the State has expunged the civil conviction from the State records, and based on his post service conduct. However, it finds these factors are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.
2. The available evidence does not include the facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to the applicant’s discharge from the Army. However, it does confirm that the applicant was convicted by a civil court and although the State records may have now be expunged, by the applicant’s own admission he was in fact convicted of an offense by a civil court at the time of his discharge.
3. The Board notes that the available evidence includes a Certificate of Military Service. This document confirms the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions, and the Board presumes government regularity in the process. Lacking 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 the separation process.
4. The Board carefully considered the character references provided by the applicant that attest to his post service good conduct. However, absent any evidence that he performed sufficient meritorious service to warrant an upgrade of his discharge, the Board concludes that his post service conduct alone does not support the requested relief.
5. 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.
6. 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
TK__ _WDP___ __FCJ__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003087931 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/08/ |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1942/09/10 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 615-360 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Civil Conviction |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059570C070421
He further states that he was discharged for AWOL but not for drugs. 24 October 1942 - 3 November 1942 AWOL 11 days. LOD NO EPTI.” He was also issued a WDAGO Form 56 (Discharge from the Army of the United States (blue)), a “Blue” discharge, a copy of which is not now in his file.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086036C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The only record available that is germane to this case is the above-cited order discharging the applicant on 11 August 1954 with an undesirable discharge. There is no evidence and the applicant has not provided any to indicate that his undesirable discharge was in error or that there was an injustice done to him.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01211
He and the other young men became involved in a robbery and were subsequently incarcerated in Idaho for a period of one year. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the limited available military records and those submitted by the applicant, he enlisted in the Army Air Corps at the age of 18 years and 9 months on 10 January 1942 in the grade of private. The certificate of discharge does not indicate any characterization of service.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02283
He was discharged to duty on 13 April 1942. After a thorough review of the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s discharge should be changed to a medical discharge with compensation. Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 15 Dec 03.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086893C070212
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant’s military records were not available to the Board for review. The ADRB decisional document also indicated that the action of the board of officers and the separation authority in determining the type of discharge to be issued to the applicant was amply supported by the evidence, and that no additional evidence of sufficient weight and credibility to warrant an upgrade had been presented. The evidence also shows that the applicant’s request for an upgrade...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606716C070209
On 7 March 1944 his commanding officer recommended that the former soldier be discharged. He stated that he always had an uncontrollable temper and if anyone said anything cross to him, he would strike him. It appears that the intent of Army Regulation 635-209 was to change the policy for separating soldiers with undesirable habits and traits of character, recognizing that these unsuitable habits included chronic alcoholism, and soldiers separated for unsuitability should receive a general...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011201
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 March 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060011201 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. Records show the applicant was arrested on 11 June 1969 by civilian authorities. On 2 March 1976, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062498C070421
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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant has not presented and...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050011770
The applicant’s military records are not available to the Board for review. The applicant's separation document shows he was inducted into the Army and entered active duty on 20 November 1942, and that he served until 16 October 1943, at which time he was honorably discharged under the provisions of Section II, Army Regulation 615-360, by reason of disability. The applicant's contention that the reason for discharge outlined in the OTSG Hospital Admission Record on file is not consistent...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077123C070215
On 6 June 1977, a board of officers convened at Fort Bliss, Texas, to consider the applicant’s case. On 21 June 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge after determining that his discharge had been proper and equitable. The record also shows that the applicant’s case was considered by a board of officers at his request, he was represented by counsel, and the board after carefully considering the facts, recommended that he...