RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 01 April 2008
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070018018
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.
Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano
Director
Mr. Dean L. Turnbull
Analyst
The following members, a quorum, were present:
Mr. Lester Echols
Chairperson
Mr. Joe R. Schroeder
Member
Mr. Larry W. Racster
Member
The Board considered the following evidence:
Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.
Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests reconsideration to upgrade his undesirable discharge to a general or an honorable discharge.
2. The applicant states, in effect, he wishes to appeal the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) decision, because the first time the Board had his serial number wrong, the Board never considered his state of mind before being absent without leave (AWOL), and the Board never considered his age and immaturity at the time of his offense. He also did not received credit for being a good Soldier with five security clearances. He did what he had to do for his mother and dad. He adds that his dad was crippled.
3. The applicant provides a personal statement.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR20060009201, on 21 December 2006.
2. In the original decision the ABCMR found that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 (Personnel Separations) for unfitness due to frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. The applicant had time 359 days lost due to AWOL and confinement. There was no evidence that the applicant sought assistance from his chain of command or chaplain to assist in resolving his problems within established regulatory procedures prior to going AWOL.
3. On 11 November 1974, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge; however, the ADRB denied his request for a discharge upgrade.
4. The applicant provided new arguments which require that his case be reconsidered by the ABCMR.
5. In the statement that the applicant provided, he repeated that he wishes to appeal the ABCMR decision, because the first time the Board had his serial
number wrong, the Board never considered his state of mind before being
AWOL, and never considered his age and immaturity at the time of his offense. Also, he did not received credit for being a good Soldier with five security clearances. He lived in the poorest county of the United States and no help was provided by the government. He could not leave his family when they needed him, therefore, the Board should consider his age and inexperience. He adds that he matured slower than most people, and his family needed him far more than the Army.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant requests reconsideration to upgrade his undesirable discharge to a general or an honorable discharge.
2. The applicant was 20 years old when he was discharged, so his contentions concerning his age, immaturity, inexperience, and that he matured slower than most people is not accepted. His personnel records do not contain any evidence of five security clearances and even if it did the clearances would not have a basis to grant a relief. Also, there is no evidence his serial number was wrong in the first ABCMR's decision, or that he was not in his right mind prior to his AWOL.
3. There is no evidence or indication that the applicant's family was experiencing a hardship when the applicant went AWOL, or that he returned home to help his family. The evidence shows he made a conscious decision not to return to duty.
4. As such, he is not entitled to correction of his records to upgrade his undesirable discharge to a general or an honorable discharge.
5. In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show, 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.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__JRS__ __LE___ __LWR___ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20060009201, dated 21 December 2006.
___Lester Echols ___
CHAIRPERSON
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070014008
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. There is no evidence that indicates that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. Therefore, he is not entitled to either a general discharge or an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110022633
On 3 July 1967, the applicant's unit commander recommended that he be required to appear before a board of officers convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for the purpose of determining whether he should be discharged before the expiration of his term of service for unfitness. The applicant provides a character reference letter from a Veterans Case Manager who states, in effect, he has known the applicant for more than 2 years and attests that the applicant is one of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006286
c. he was 19 years old and served in Vietnam for 15 months. However, there are no provisions in Army regulations that allow the upgrade of a discharge for the sole purpose of securing veteran's benefits. Records show the applicant was age 20 years at the time of his offenses.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130005984
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 January 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130005984 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. There is no indication in his records showing he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations 9. Based on the foregoing, there is an insufficient basis to upgrade his discharge to an honorable discharge or to a general discharge under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081978C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. His punishment consisted of correctional custody for a period of 15 days. The applicant’s complete discharge packet is not contained in his records.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021813
d. He states he was given a medical examination upon entry into military service that showed he had a heart murmur; however, he was not given a medical discharge. (2) He states that a commissioned officer offered individuals in the stockade the opportunity to request a discharge for the good of the service. Thus, the evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant's record of service during the period of service under review did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 04100272C070208
Although the self-authored statement, submitted with the applicant’s current application to the Board was included with his original request to have his discharge reviewed by the Army Discharge Review Board, his argument that he was immature, has now matured, and that his recruiter lied to him, are new arguments not previously addressed by this Board. He stated that his brother (the applicant) was assigned to Germany after training and that they “missed [him] considerably….” He states that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010662
BOARD DATE: 21 January 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090010662 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant at the time confirms he was separated under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 with an undesirable discharge under other than honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008640
After consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10. a. He further acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request were accepted, he could be discharged under conditions other than honorable and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He stated that at the time they had just had their first child when he came home on leave.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021800
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 July 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110021800 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged from the Regular Army on 28 January 1986 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 3, due to court-martial. The applicant contends that his bad conduct discharge should be upgraded to honorable and the reason for discharge should be changed to ETS because none of the offenses were...