BOARD DATE:	  11 October 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110006266 


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, the daughter of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests that the FSM's undesirable discharge (UD) be changed to a hardship discharge. 

2.  The applicant states her father was a Native American who was raised on a Navajo Reservation and he was experiencing a hardship.  She believes this is the reason for her father’s time lost.  She further states her father cannot be asked what happened because he is deceased.  She is requesting that the Board have pity on the FSM and upgrade his discharge.  

3.  The applicant provides no documentary evidence in support of the application. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The FSM’s military records were damaged in a fire at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) in 1973.  This case is being considered based on a partial record and the FSM’s DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States).  

2.  The available evidence shows the FSM was inducted into the Army of the United States on 7 May 1954.  He held and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 162.000 (Generator Operator) and private/E-2 is the highest rank he held while on active duty.  The available evidence documents no acts of valor or significant achievement and shows the FSM earned no individual awards or decorations during his active duty tenure.  
3.  The FSM’s disciplinary history includes two summary court-martial (SCM) convictions in June and September 1955; and a special court-martial (SPCM) conviction in March 1956.  It also includes his accrual of 66 days of lost time.  

4.  The available evidence is void of any documents or records indicating the FSM raised personal problems/issues that would have supported a hardship discharge, or that he ever applied for such a discharge.  

5.  The available evidence is void of a complete separation packet containing all the facts and circumstances surrounding the FSM’s discharge processing.  It does contain partially legible documents that show his case was considered by an elimination board of officers that recommended that he be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, due to unfitness with a UD.  These documents also show the elimination board recommendations were approved by the separation authority who directed the issuance of a UD.  

6.  The record also contains a properly-constituted DD Form 214 that shows on 21 June 1956, the FSM was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, due to unfitness with a UD.  It also shows he held the rank of private/
E-1 and had completed a total of 1 year, 11 months, and 9 days of creditable active military service and he had accrued 66 days of time lost.  

7.  The record also contains documents that confirm the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered the FSM’s request for an upgrade of his UD in June 1958.  The ADRB, after careful review of the FSM’s military record and of the issues the FSM presented, determined his discharge was proper and equitable and voted to deny his request for an upgrade of his discharge.  

8.  Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel who were found unfit or unsuitable for further military service.  The regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities for unfitness.  While the separation authority could grant a general discharge (GD) or honorable discharge (HD), if warranted by the member's overall record of service, the issue of a UD was normally considered appropriate for members separated under these provisions. 

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  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.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge (GD) is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s request that the FSM's UD be changed to a hardship discharge has been carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this request.  

2.  The available evidence does not contain a complete separation packet concerning all the facts and circumstances surrounding the FSM’s discharge processing.  However, it does contain partially legible documents that confirm the FSM’s UD for unfitness was recommended by a properly-constituted elimination board and that this board’s recommendation was approved by the separation authority.  It also contains a properly-constituted DD Form 214 that confirms the authority and reason for the FSM’s discharge.  Absent evidence of error or injustice these documents carry with them a presumption of government regularity. 

3.  The record also shows the ADRB considered the FSM’s petition for a change to his discharge in June 1958 and it was determined that his discharge was proper and equitable and that board voted to deny his request for an upgrade of his discharge. 

4.  Absent evidence to the contrary, it is clear the FSM’s separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the FSM’s rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. 

5.  The available evidence documents no acts of valor or significant achievement and fails to show he was experiencing personal problems that would have supported a hardship discharge.  His record does reveal an extensive disciplinary history that includes two SCM convictions, one SPCM conviction, and accrual of 66 days of lost time.  As a result, it is clear his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of undistinguished service.  His overall record of service did not support the issue of a GD or HD at the time of his discharge, and does not support an upgrade at this time.  

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)                                         AR20110006266



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110006266



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1