| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Yvonne J. Foskey | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member | ||
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, at the time of his discharge he was young and immature and as was the case with the country, his life was in turmoil. He claims that his service helped him to realize many things that have helped him in life since his discharge. In support of his application, he submits the enclosed personal statement, two letters of support attesting to his excellent character, a certificate of completion of a computer application course, a certificate of baptism, a birth certificate, a copy of general education development (GED) test results, and a criminal records check.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show
On 14 September 1967, the applicant entered the Army for a period of 3 years. He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B10 (Lights Weapons Infantryman), and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private/E-1.
The applicant’s record reveals no acts of valor, significant achievement or service warranting special recognition during his active duty tenure. However, it does contain an extensive disciplinary history. On 4 December 1967, the applicant departed absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit, and he remained away for until 13 December 1967.
On 15 December 1967, the applicant again departed AWOL from unit, and he remained away until 2 January 1968. On 4 January 1968, he once again went AWOL, and remained away until 31 May 1968.
On 23 February 1968, the applicant was found guilty of three specifications of AWOL by a special court-martial. The resultant sentence included six months hard labor and a forfeiture of $63.00 per month for six months.
On 16 March 1968, the applicant’s unit commander informed him that he was being recommended for separation under the provisions of paragraph 6a,
Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness. In his recommendation, the unit commander indicated after the applicant’s return from his first AWOL period, he was offered nonjudicial punishment (NJP), in the hopes that he could be rehabilitated. The unit commander further stated that during the short periods the applicant was present for duty, he evinced an attitude of purely indifference, and stated his desire to separate from the military.
On 10 April 1968, the applicant consulted with legal counsel. After being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects, he completed his election of rights. In his election of rights he waived the right to counsel. He also waived his right to consideration of his case by a board of officers, and his right to a personal appearance before a board of officers. Finally, he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 24 May 1968, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation and directed that he receive an UD. On 31 May 1968, the applicant was discharged accordingly. At the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 2 months and 20 days of creditable active military service, and he had accrued
178 days of time lost due to AWOL.
The record provides no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade to his discharge within its 15 year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority, established the policy, and prescribed the procedures for separating members for unfitness. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions.
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 contentions that he was young, immature, and his life was in turmoil at the time of his discharge. However, given his short and undistinguished record of service, it finds these factors are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.
2. The Board also notes that the applicant was notified of the contemplated separation action by his unit commander, consulted legal counsel, and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and of its possible effects. In addition, subsequent to this counseling, he elected to waive his right to have his case considered by a board of officers.
3. Lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, it finds that the character of the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service. Therefore, the Board concludes that an upgrade to his discharge is not warranted at this time.
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
RKS__ __JM___ __JHL __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003088347 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/07/DD |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1968/05/31 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-212 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Unfitness |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1.189 | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140004409
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 November 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140004409 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 21 November 1968, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation that the applicant be discharged from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 and directed the applicant be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 3-7b, states a general discharge is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710655C070209
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 Board considered the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089242C070403
The Board considered the following evidence: EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 1 May 1970, the applicant was discharged accordingly.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710655
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 | CY2003 | 2003088747C070403
The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on the date of separation confirms that he completed a total of 5 months and 17 days of creditable active military service, and that he accrued a total of 399 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement. On 12 March 1984, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed the applicant’s case and determined that the characterization and reason for the applicant’s discharge were both proper and equitable, and it voted to deny his request for an upgrade...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709683
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 | CY1997 | 9709683C070209
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 Board considered the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006831
The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD) to a general or an honorable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations) states in: a. Paragraph 3-7a - an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The Commander, Special Processing Detachment, after interviewing the applicant and reviewing his records recommended the applicant be discharged for unfitness based on 315 days of lost time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100001158
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The separation authority approved the applicant's discharge and on 29 July 1969 the applicant was separated accordingly with a UD. The separation authority could authorize a general discharge (GD) or honorable discharge (HD) if warranted by the member's record of service; however, when separation for unfitness was warranted, a UD was normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000414
Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Separations) sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. b. 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.