| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Yvonne J. Foskey | Analyst |
| Mr. Robert L. Duecaster | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Member | ||
| Ms. Linda D. Simmons | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a honorable discharge (HD)
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was given no help for his drinking problem while he was in the service. He received no counseling from psychologists, chaplains, or other service providers. No one tried to help him with his problems. He states that when he entered the Army, alcohol use was a way of life for him. This continued and was also accepted behavior in the Army while he was in training. Once he was assigned to Germany, he encountered prejudice, both on and off post, which he was not used to. This coupled with the fact that he discovered his father, who he had thought dead, was in fact in a mental institution and was dying caused him to drink even more. He was unaware of the dangers of alcohol use at the time and it was not until years of wasted time that he got help for his problem. He states that now, through the help of God, his wife, Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), and his church, he tries to keep it together one day at a time.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 24 August 1954, he initially enlisted in the Army. He continuously served on active duty until receiving an UD on 24 October 1956. His record shows that he was trained and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 111 (Light Weapons Infantryman).
The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition. However, it does reveal a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of company punishment for being absent without leave (AWOL) on four separate occasions between 15 September
1955 and 6 June 1956, and his conviction of being AWOL by a summary
court-martial on 4 May 1956.
On 17 September 1956, the applicant’s unit commander requested that a board of officers be appointed to consider taking elimination action against the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208. Included with the commander’s request were statements from his first sergeant, platoon sergeant, and squad leader. These statements all indicated that the applicant repeatedly went AWOL, that he had a poor attitude towards the Army and his superiors, and they all recommended that the applicant be separated from the Army.
On 22 September 1956, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the unit commander’s action and he elected to waive his right to be represented by counsel before the board of officers and his right to call witnesses on his behalf.
On 24 September 1956, a board of officers convened to consider the applicant’s case. After considering the case, the board of officers recommended that the applicant be discharged for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 and that he receive an UD. The separation authority accepted the recommendation of the board of officers and directed that the applicant be discharged accordingly.
The applicant provides two letters of support from friends. These letters contain language attesting to the applicant’s recent outstanding character and good citizenship.
On 23 October 1958, the Army Discharge Review Board reviewed the applicant’s case and found that the characterization and reason for his discharge were proper and equitable, and it voted to deny the applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded.
Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, provided for the separation of members for unfitness due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. An UD was normally considered appropriate.
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 applicant’s contentions that he was not provided any help or counseling to deal with his drinking problem while serving, and that there were personal family problems that contributed to his misconduct were carefully considered. In addition, the letters of support provided by the applicant’s friends were also reviewed and considered. However, given the applicant’s undistinguished overall record of service, these factors were not found sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.
2. The evidence of record further confirms that all requirements by law and regulation were met, and that the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. As a result, an upgrade to his discharge would not be appropriate at this time.
3. 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.
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
__JHL_ _LDS___ __RLD _ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003090176 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/11/ |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1956/10/24 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR .635-208 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061058C070421
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge or that the reason for discharge be changed to "Convenience of the Government." An Army Discharge Review Boards (ADRB) Case Report, dated 19 April 1962, reveals that, on 4 October 1956, the applicant's commander recommended that a board of officers meet to determine his fitness for continued military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208. The Board does not condone the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012361
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 May 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060012361 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. The applicants company commander concluded by stating that under the circumstances at the time, the service would benefit if he were discharged, and recommended that he be discharged under the provisions of Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056266C070420
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded. On 11 July 1957, the applicant’s unit commander completed a statement in which he recommended that the applicant be discharged from the Army. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and that the character of the discharge was commensurate with his overall record of service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010845
The applicant submitted a letter from a friend who states the applicant worked for his father back in the early 1960's before the applicant started his own transmission service. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The applicant's records were not available for the Board's review.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050006816C070206
The psychiatrist states that he reviewed with the applicant the reasons for his AWOLs while in the military and concluded that the cause for this misconduct was the applicant's alcoholism. There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitation. Evidence shows the applicant's alcoholism started prior to entering the service and his service records...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078823C070215
He completed 2 years, 11 months and 2 days of total active service and he had approximately 84 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement. On 18 February 1963, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. However, there is no evidence of record that shows that he was an alcoholic while he was in the Army.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001066136C070421
The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous application to correct his military records by upgrading his undesirable discharge to a general discharge. He was discharged from the Army in 1962 and remained an alcoholic until 1978. It was only after he stopped drinking for several years that he felt he could ask for his records to be changed.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073864C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that if he received a discharge at the present time it would have been an honorable or medical 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086694C070212
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. In support of his application, he submits a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214) and an Extract of Military Records of Previous Convictions (DD Form 493).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070102C070402
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. DETERMINATION : The subject application was not submitted within the time required. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient...