IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 1 November 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120007914
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:
* an upgrade of his under honorable conditions discharge (general discharge) to an honorable discharge
* restoration of his rank/grade of sergeant (SGT)/E-5
* a personal appearance hearing
2. The applicant states:
* he was granted a less than honorable discharge due to discrimination
* he disagrees with the reason for his lost days
* he was not court-martialed or involved in any negative activities
3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).
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 applicants 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 applicants failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.
2. On 24 July 1956, the applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve for a period of 6 years. He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman). On 17 January 1961, he was ordered to active duty. The highest rank/grade he attained while on active duty was specialist four (SP4)/E-4.
3. The record does not contain any evidence of discrimination nor does the applicant provide any.
4. The applicant's DA Form 24 (Service Record) shows he was promoted to SP4 on 1 October 1958 by Special Order Number 26, Headquarters, 314th Infantry Regiment.
5. Neither his DA Form 24, DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record), nor Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) show an entry or special order promoting him to the rank/grade of SGT/E-5.
6. A DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 27 July 1962, shows the applicant was charged with being absent without leave (AWOL) from on or about 17 July 1962 until on or about 26 July 1962. He was tried and found guilty by a summary court-martial. His sentence consisted of a one-month forfeiture of $70 and a suspended sentence of confinement to hard labor for one month until 27 November 1962. The form also shows the comment, "
will continue to serve in the grade of SP4 unless the suspension of the confinement at hard labor is vacated
"
7. A DD Form 458, dated 19 January 1963, shows the applicant was charged with being AWOL on 17 January 1963 during the hours 0001 to on or about 2145 hours. He was tried and found guilty by a summary court-martial and sentenced to forfeiture of two-thirds of one month's pay. The convening authority modified his sentence to forfeiture of $75 for one month.
8. On 6 February 1963, the applicant was discharged upon his expiration term of service with an under honorable conditions discharge.
9. His DD Form 214 shows:
* his rank/grade as SP4/E-4
* he completed 2 years and 11 days of active service
* he had 4 years, 5 months and 23 days of other service
* he had 9 days of lost time for the period 17 July through 25 July 1962
10. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
11. 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 members 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.
12. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. Paragraph 2-11 states applicants do not have a right to a formal hearing before the ABCMR. The ABCMR Director may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's request for an upgrade of his under honorable conditions discharge (general discharge) to an honorable discharge was carefully considered.
2. Regarding a personal appearance, Army Regulation 15-185 states applicants do not have a right to a formal hearing before the ABCMR; the decision to grant a formal hearing resides with the ABCMR Director whenever justice requires. In this case, sufficient records exist to make a fair and impartial consideration of the applicant's request without a formal hearing.
3. It appears his immediate commander and the separation authority considered his service record and recommended and approved an under honorable conditions discharge (general discharge).
4. The record does not contain any evidence of discrimination nor does the applicant provide any. Therefore, this issue is without merit.
5. The applicant's AMHRR is void of evidence and he does not provide any showing he was promoted to the rank/grade of SGT/E-5. Therefore, this issue is without merit.
6. His overall service did not meet the standard required for an honorable discharge.
7. Based on the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.
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) AR20120007914
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120007914
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110012880
He was not promoted to SGT during the period covered by this DD Form 214. c. He did not serve through 1965 during the period covered by his DD Form 214. d. He arrived in Germany on 18 April 1960 and remained in Germany through his release from active duty date on 5 November 1961, a period of 1 year, 6 months, and 27 days. With respect to his first DD Form 214 that covered his active duty from 6 November 1961 to 22 March 1963, the applicant will be provided with a copy of this form: a. He...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019927
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 16 July 1979, while serving in the rank of SFC, a special court martial (SPCM) found the applicant guilty of violating the following Articles of the UCMJ: * 2 specifications Article 132, for preparing fraudulent claims against the United States on 10 October 1978 in the amount of $871.36, and on 8 November 1978, in the amount of $1,729.00 * 2 specifications Article 107, for with the intent to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070018855
The applicant requests, in effect, that Item 3a (Grade, Rate or Rank) of his separation document (DD Form 214) be corrected to show sergeant (SGT)/E-5. The applicant states, in effect, he was a SGT/E-5 when he was discharged from military service. _ ___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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007361
The Soldier listed on the SPCM orders has the same name as the applicant; however, the Service Number listed on the orders is different from the applicant's. Therefore, the SPCM order in question was clearly filed in his record as a result of an administrative error and should be removed from his record at this time. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by removing Headquarters, Special Troops, Fort Campbell,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019236
Section 1 (Appointments, Promotions, and Reductions) of his DA Form 24 (Service Record) shows he was promoted to SP5/E-5 (T) on 3 April 1964 and SP5/E-5 (P) on 3 April 1965. Army Regulation 624-200, effective 1 July 1962, section III, governed the temporary appointment of enlisted personnel of the active Army to pay grades E-4 through E-9 made against periodic temporary appointment quota allocations issued by Headquarters, Department of the Army. However, all evidence in his records...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008919
The applicant states, in effect, that he was court-martialed and discharged after following direct orders from a non-commissioned officer (NCO). On 15 January 1963, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007529
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). There are no orders in his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR), formerly known as the Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), promoting him to SGT/E-5. This regulation stated that the active duty grade at the time of separation was to be entered on the DD Form 214.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009976
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant did not provide any evidence. However, his records contain two DA Forms 24 (Service Record) and a DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record), as follows: a. DA Form 24 covering the period 10 September 1962 to 2 September 1965 shows in Section 1 - Appointments, Promotions or Reduction the following grades and effective dates: * private (PVT)/E-1, 10 September 1962 * private (PVT)/E-2,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070014122
After completion of 2 months and 8 days of military service, he was honorably discharged on 20 April 1962 for the purpose of enlistment in the Regular Army. However, the DD Form 214 he was issued at the time of his discharge confirms he was discharged on 1 March 1968 for unfitness, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 and his characterization of service was under conditions other than honorable. On 21 November 1968, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicants request...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120015127
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Normally, such appeals will be considered only from Soldiers in grades E-6 and above, officers, and warrant officers. The evidence of record shows the DD Forms 458, 533, 616, and allied documents are properly filed on the performance fiche of the applicant's AMHRR in accordance with applicable regulations.