| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Linda D. Simmons | Member | |
| Ms. Marla J. Troup | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he enlisted in the Army. His mother was a diabetic and was real sick. He was trying very hard to deal with her sickness and kept a lot inside him. In his mind, running away took away her being sick. Then she died, and his running away made it seem like his mother's death would be washed away. He still had problems dealing with her death after his discharge. As supporting evidence he provides a statement from his wife.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
After receiving a moral waiver (malicious destruction of property – dropped small stones from overpass and broke the windshield of a vehicle on 7 August 1967), he enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 October 1967.
On 26 February 1968, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 26 February 1968 to on or about 15 March 1968.
On 16 June 1969, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for failing to obey a lawful order to return a fan he took from the mess hall.
On 4 August 1970, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of four specifications of AWOL (from 29 December 1969 to on or about 15 February 1970, from 9 March 1970 to on or about 16 March 1970, from 23 March 1970 to on or about 23 April 1970, and from 23 April 1970 to on or about 17 July 1970). He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 3 months.
On 18 March 1971, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation. No evidence of any mental or physical defects sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels was found. He was not found to manifest a psychosis or neurosis. He was found to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.
On 25 March 1971, the commander of the 12th Correctional Training Unit, 3d Correctional Training Battalion, U. S. Army Correctional Training Facility, Fort Riley, KS initiated action to separate the applicant under Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness. The commander noted that the applicant had been sent to that facility for the purpose of receiving correctional training and treatment necessary to return him to duty as a well-trained soldier with improved attitude and motivation. The applicant was returned to duty but since then had been AWOL for 28 days.
The applicant was advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation and its effect and the rights available to him. He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers; waived personal appearance before such a board; elected not to make a statement on his behalf; and waived representation by counsel.
On 29 March 1971, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
On 1 April 1971, the applicant was discharged, with an undesirable discharge, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness. He had completed 2 years, 7 months, and 17 days of creditable active service and had 298 days of lost time.
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness or unsuitability. The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, sexual perversion, drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit-forming drugs or marijuana, an established pattern for shirking, an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts or failure to contribute adequate support to dependents, were subject to separation for unfitness. Such action would be taken when it was clearly established that despite attempts to rehabilitate or develop him as a satisfactory soldier further effort was unlikely to succeed.
Army Regulation 635-200 governs the separation of enlisted personnel. In pertinent part, it states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. It is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
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 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.
2. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
3. The evidence of record shows the applicant had a civilian record of misconduct prior to his enlistment. He had the opportunity to make a statement in his own behalf at the time of his discharge which could have offered his mother's illness and death as mitigating circumstances but he failed to do so. There is insufficient evidence on which to base an upgrade of his discharge to either fully honorable or general under honorable conditions.
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___ __lds___ __mjt___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003090084 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20031028 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19710401 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-212 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A51.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | Mr. Chun |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020121
There is no evidence that indicates he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The applicant's leadership indicated his attitude and job performance was very poor; he absented himself from the platoon without permission; he had to be constantly told to get a haircut, shave, or dress in a more military manner; he had continuously caused trouble since he joined the platoon; he refused to carry out orders; and he had admitted for no...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006129
The applicant enlisted on 5 June 1967 at the age of 19 years and 4 months. There is no indication that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge. _______ _ X _______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110023965
On 30 September 1971, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness. On 26 September 1974 and 4 October 1976, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge and determined his discharge was both proper and equitable. This regulation prescribed that an individual discharged for unfitness would be furnished an undesirable discharge, except when an honorable or a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027476
The applicant's records are somewhat incomplete; however, his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows: * Basic Combat Training at Fort Campbell, KY and award of the National Defense Service Medal and Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar * Advanced Individual Training at Fort Polk, LA * Awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 76A1O (Supply Clerk) * Basic Airborne Course, Fort Benning, GA * Awarded Parachutist Badge and MOS 76A1P (for Parachutist) * Arrived...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002893
He completed 1 year, 8 months, and 2 days of active military service. On 11 February 1975 and 19 October 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024434
Charges were preferred against the applicant at Fort Riley on 17 March 1971 for being AWOL from 9 October 1969 to 18 September 1970 and 20 October 1970 to 25 February 1971. On 27 June 1977 the applicants discharge was reviewed by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) under the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) which voted to upgrade his undesirable discharge to a general discharge based on his previously-issued honorable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, states a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004106314C070208
The 11 June 1986 letter provided by the applicant is new evidence which will be considered by the Board. On 23 March 1971, the applicant completed a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation. On 28 June 1971, the applicant was discharged, with an undesirable discharge, under other than honorable conditions, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014844
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. There is no evidence in the available records to show that the FSM ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003106
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic policy for the separation of enlisted personnel. b. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. However, his record contains a DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 9 December 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unfitness.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019752
Counsel requests the applicant's undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The absent without leave (AWOL) should not be considered in discharge processing because it was in fact not bad time because the unit was aware of his location and medical treatment; c. there were no "sufficiently detailed reasons" for his unfit discharge provided to medical examiners as required by Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and...