IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  15 October 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090006701 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that his general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to fully honorable.  He also requests award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.  

2.  The applicant states he was arrested and detained by local Detroit authorities on 15 September 1969 for a crime he did not commit while he was stationed at Selfridge Air Force Base, MI.  He was pending a hardship discharge at the time, but was discharged before the case went to court.  He contends that it was determined that he was not the guilty party.  He states that the error in this incident was he offered a ride home to a neighbor, who had a pellet gun that he was not aware of.  He cooperated fully with authorities and his military career was unblemished throughout his service time.  The applicant contends that he does not deserve the general discharge.  Consequently, he was deprived of his Army Good Conduct Medal prior to his case being heard in court.  He also contends that this discharge was based on a "Rush To Judgement" and it has bothered him since that time.  He states his discharge should reflect good and faithful service.  

3.  The applicant provides a personal statement, dated 20 April 2009; a letter, dated 23 September 1969, from Headquarters Battery, 28th Artillery Group (Air Defense); information obtained from the Internet Criminal History Access Tool Michigan State Police website; and a definition of a general discharge in support of his application.  

4.  On 14 August 2009, the applicant provided an additional personal statement in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  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.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 25 March 1968.  His highest grade attained was specialist four, E-4.  He was assigned to Germany in September 1968 as a combat construction specialist.  

3.  On an unknown date apparently while at Selfridge Air Force Base, MI, the applicant submitted a request for a hardship discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 6.  

4.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not contained in the available records.  However, his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows that the applicant was discharged on 23 September 1969 under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, chapter 6 for hardship.  He had completed 1 year, 5 months and 29 days of total active service with service characterized as general.  

5.  In a 23 September 1969 letter, the applicant's commanding officer indicated the applicant was given a conduct and efficiency rating of "unsatisfactory" for being detained by civil authorities on 15 September 1969 on the charge of shooting into the police station with a pellet gun and destroying public property.  His conduct and efficiency ratings were "unsatisfactory."  The commanding officer indicated that the applicant's efficiency rating of "unsatisfactory" was given because of his complete ineptness in accomplishing even the simplest of duties.  Also, the commanding officer stated that the applicant's attitude, personal appearance and general military bearing were poor while he was assigned to his unit.  

6.  The applicant's service personnel records contain a DA Form 137 (Installation Clearance Record), dated 23 September 1969, which shows his commanding officer did not recommend him for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.  

7.  The applicant provided a copy of an Internet Criminal History Access Tool Michigan State Police which indicates that a search of Michigan's Criminal History File had not located a criminal record matching the information he provided.  

8.  The applicant provided a personal statement in support of his claim.  He stated that he did not receive any kind of disciplinary action during his military obligation.  He alleged that his conduct was not unsatisfactory as noted by his superiors at Selfridge Air Force Base in September 1969.  In addition, he alleged that he was unjustly judged and rated for an offense he did not commit.  The applicant claimed that a review of his military records would reveal his activity as a member of the U.S. Army was faithful and honorable.  Further, he alleged that his arrest for an alleged crime on 15 September 1969 should not have triggered his general discharge prior to hearing the facts of the allegations.  He mentioned that he had requested a hardship discharge because his father had a stroke and he was the only means of support for his family.  

9.  In August 2009, the applicant provided an additional personal statement.  He listed twelve contentions regarding his request for an upgrade from general to honorable to include the following: (1) did not commit a crime; (2) did not participate in any crime; (3) was not a willing participant in any offense (4) was not afforded the opportunity to explain any part of this to his commanding officer; (5) was issued no disciplinary action while he served in the U.S. Army; (6) conduct while in the military was not unsatisfactory; (7) efficiency while in the military was not unsatisfactory: (8) was not advised of his right to seek counsel prior to the general discharge; (9) was not allowed to present statements or documentation to refute the general discharge (10) was not required to sign documents acknowledging that "substantial prejudice in civilian life"; (11) general discharge was not preceded by any form of nonjudicial punishment utilized by the unit commander; and (12) commanding officer did not disclose in writing to him that he was initiating discharge action nor did he explain any reasoning for recommending his characterization of service.  The applicant reiterated some of the contentions presented in his other personal statement.  He alleged that his commanding officer submitted conduct and efficiency ratings on 23 September 


1969 that were unfair.  The applicant referenced adverse statements made by his commanding officer regarding his conduct and efficiency ratings.  

10.  There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

11.  Chapter 6 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) governs separation because of dependency or hardship.  The regulation provides that hardship exists when, in circumstances not involving death or disability of a member of a Soldier’s (or spouse’s) immediate family, separation from the Service will materially affect the care or support of the family by alleviating undue and genuine hardship.  Under this provision for hardship discharge, parenthood of married service women and sole parenthood are the two conditions under which separation may be granted.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’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.

13.  Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Military Awards), in effect at the time, provided policy and criteria concerning individual military decorations.  It stated that the Army Good Conduct Medal was awarded for each 3 years of continuous enlisted active Federal military service completed on or after 27 August 1940 and, for the first award only, upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950 of less than 3 years but more than 1 year.  At the time, a Soldier's conduct and efficiency ratings must have been rated as "excellent" for the entire period of qualifying service.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions were carefully considered.  After review of the evidence of this case, the applicant has not presented sufficient evidence which indicates the actions taken in this case were in error or unjust.  

2.  While it is clear that his family was experiencing a hardship while he was on active duty, the applicant's service was not totally honorable as he was detained by civil authorities on the charge of shooting into the police station with a pellet gun and destroying public property, which resulted in his service being properly characterized as general under honorable conditions.  In addition, the applicant's commanding officer stated that the applicant was also given a conduct and efficiency rating of "unsatisfactory" because of his complete ineptness in 
accomplishing even the simplest of duties; his attitude and personal appearance; and general military bearing were poor while assigned to his unit.  

3.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations.  

4.  It appears the chain of command determined the applicant's overall military service did not meet the standards for an honorable discharge as defined in Army Regulation 635-200 and appropriately characterized his service as general under honorable conditions.  

5.  There is no basis for granting the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge to fully honorable.

6.  The applicant’s service records show his company commander disqualified him from award of the Good Conduct Medal, his record shows he was detained by civil authorities on the charge of shooting into the police station with a pellet gun and destroying public property, and he received a conduct and efficiency rating of "unsatisfactory."  Therefore, these are disqualifying factors for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.

7.  The applicant's personal statements were noted.  However, there is insufficient evident to support his allegations.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____X___  ___X____  ___X___  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 for correction of the records of the individual concerned.



      _______ _   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.


ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090006701





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090006701



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1