| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member | ||
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the undesirable discharge (UD) of her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM), be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the FSM was 18 years of age at the time of his discharge, and he waived his right to counsel or to receive help in understanding the ramifications of accepting the discharge. She claims that although two of his supervisors indicated that he did not want to be in the Army and that he was absent from work on numerous occasions, his separation document (DD Form 214) shows no lost time due to being absent without leave (AWOL). She also states that it is her belief that had the FSM received proper counseling, his ability and potential would have been revealed. She further indicates that the FSM’s problems in the service could be attributed to his lack of maturity because subsequent to his discharge, he worked for 25 years, and he was married and raised three children, one of which is currently a sergeant in the Army.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The FSM’s military records show:
On 13 May 1971, he enlisted in the Regular Army for three years. He successfully completed basic training at Fort Polk, Louisiana and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. Upon completion of AIT, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 62E (Crawl Tractor Operator) and he was assigned to Korea.
The FSM’s record confirms that the highest rank he held while serving on active duty was private first class/E-3, which he attained on 26 October 1971. It also shows that he was reduced to private/E-2 on 25 January 1972 and to private/E-1 on 12 April 1972 for cause.
The FSM’s record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition. However, it does reveal an extensive disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on two separate occasions, and his conviction by a special court-martial.
On 25 April 1972, after being advised that discharge action had been initiated on him, the FSM consulted with legal counsel. Counsel advised the FSM of the basis for the contemplated separation, its effects, and of the rights available to him. After receiving this legal counseling, the FSM completed his election of rights statement. In this statement, he acknowledged that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life as a result of receiving an UD. He further stated that he understood that as a result of receiving an UD, he could be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State Law.
The FSM waived his right to consideration of his case by a board of officers; his right to a personal appearance before a board of officers, and his right to be represented by counsel. He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 26 April 1972, the FSM’s unit commander recommended that the FSM be discharged for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. The unit commander based his recommendation on the FSM’s established pattern of shirking.
On 17 May 1972, the appropriate separation authority approved the FSM’s separation and directed that he receive an UD. On 6 June 1972, the FSM was discharged accordingly.
The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to and authenticated by the applicant with his signature on the date of his separation confirms that he received an UD under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unfitness. This document also verifies that at the time of his discharge, he held the rank of private/E-1 and he had completed a total of 1 year and 24 days of creditable active military service.
The record provides no indication that the FSM 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 contention that the FSM’s youth and immaturity impacted his ability to serve, and that he was not properly counseled on the impact of his discharge. However, if finds no evidentiary basis to support these claims.
2. The Board takes special note of the fact that after being notified of the separation action, the FSM consulted with legal counsel and was fully advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and of its possible effects. In addition, subsequent to this counseling, he voluntarily elected to waive his right to have his case considered by a board of officers and he made no statement in his own behalf.
3. Lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the FSM were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, it finds that the character of the FSM’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 | AR2003090107 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/07/DD |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1972/06/06 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-212 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Unfitness |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 360 | 144.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085334C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that his alcohol problems started prior to his entering the Army and continued during his active duty tenure. On 21 November 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board determined that the applicant’s UD was proper and equitable and it denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077082C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 24 August 1971, the applicant’s unit commander notified her that a separation action was being initiated to eliminate her from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002077082SUFFIXRECONYYYYMMDDDATE BOARDED2002/11/05TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UD)DATE OF...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084977C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073349C070403
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: In addition, there is no evidence of record showing that he ever applied for a hardship discharge; and even if he had, the Board finds this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief. The evidence of record shows the applicant was separated for unfitness and reduced to the lowest enlisted grade based on an extensive history of misconduct.
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 | 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 | CY2012 | 20120005664
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 28 July 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), after careful consideration of the applicants military records and all other available evidence, determined the applicants discharge was proper and equitable and voted unanimously to deny the applicants request for an upgrade of his discharge. b. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120012151
This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. On 7 November 1979 after careful consideration of the military record and all other available evidence, the Army Discharge Review Board determined the applicant's discharge was proper and equitable and voted to deny the applicant's request...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014497
On 17 July 1972, the separation authority waived any further rehabilitation efforts, approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of AR 635-212 by reason of unfitness, and directed the applicant be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The evidence of record shows that the applicant had two instances of AWOL while still in AIT, including a lengthy period of 238 days. Further, the applicant's discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017780
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) which was upgraded to a general discharge (GD), under the Department of Defense (DOD) Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP), be upgraded to honorable. A memorandum, dated 21 October 1971, Subject: Elimination Proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, shows that a board of officers was directed to investigate his case to determine if he should be discharged from the service. He applied to the Army...