IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 30 January 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130009018
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 widow of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge.
2. The applicant states she needs his discharge upgraded and a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United Report of Transfer or Discharge).
3. The applicant provides a copy of his death certificate and a Standard Form (SF) 180 (Request Pertaining to Military Records), dated 30 April 2012.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The FSM was inducted into the Army on 10 May 1968. He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 13A (Field Artillery).
2. His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows in:
a. item 41 (Awards and Decorations) he was awarded the:
* National Defense Service Medal
* Vietnam Service Medal
* Vietnam Campaign Medal
* Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar
b. item 44 (Time Lost) 14 entries of lost time periods for being absent without leave (AWOL) or in confinement for a total of approximately 388 days.
3. The FSM was punished under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on four occasions for being AWOL.
4. He was found guilty by a special court-martial on two occasions of being AWOL and once by a summary court-martial of being AWOL.
5. On 27 January 1971, the FSM's commander recommended his separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations-Discharge-Unfitness and Unsuitability) for unfitness frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities with an undesirable discharge. The commander stated the discharge was recommended because the FSM had two special court-martial and one summary court-martial convictions and two Article 15s.
6. The FSM consulted with counsel and he waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived representation by counsel, and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
7. The battalion commander recommended approval of the discharge recommendation.
8. On 17 February 1971, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge with issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
9. The FSM was discharged on 3 March 1971. He had completed 1 year,
10 months, and 3 days of total active service with 14 entries showing periods of time lost.
10. On 7 October 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) notified the FSM that they had determined he had been properly discharged and denied his request for a change in the type and nature of his discharge.
11. Army Regulation 635-212 provided that an individual was subject to separation for unfitness when one or more of six conditions existed. These included frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. When separation for unfitness was warranted, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.
12. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
a. 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.
b. Paragraph 3-7b states a general discharge 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 did not provide any evidence to support her request. The FSM's record of misconduct clearly shows frequent incidents of a discreditable nature.
2. The FSM's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
3. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
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) AR20100016226
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130009018
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002788
On 15 October 1971, the applicant's commander recommended the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations-Discharge-Unfitness and Unsuitability) for unfitness frequent involvement in incidents of discreditable nature with civil or military authorities with an undesirable discharge. The commander stated the discharge was recommended because the applicant had two special courts-martial and one punishment under the provisions of Article 15,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006727
However, his DD Form 214 shows he was administratively discharged on 2 July 1970 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations Discharge Frequent Incidents of a Discreditable Nature). b. Paragraph 3-7b states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) sets forth the policy and procedures for the ABCMR.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007829
However, his record contains a DD Form 214 showing he was discharged on 23 November 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations Discharge Unfitness and Unsuitability), and his service was characterized as under conditions other than honorable. 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. The complete facts and circumstances of his discharge are...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130022168
On 26 April 1971, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 15 January 1974, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for a general discharge. _____________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 | CY2008 | 20080005821
On 29 October 1971, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant be furnished an undesirable discharge. There is no indication in the available records that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade within its 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009296
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 November 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090009296 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 27 February 1971, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant be furnished an undesirable discharge. There is no indication in the available records that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for a discharge upgrade within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014648
The applicant requests that her brother's undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldiers separation specifically allows such characterization. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090014648 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090014648 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120000449
The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge. On 10 November 1971, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011817
While at the CTF he was tried by special court-martial and sentenced to 3 months confinement at hard labor. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. The ABCMR does not grant requests for upgrade of discharges solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible for veterans or medical benefits.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001808
On 9 June 1971, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 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. Therefore, his record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable or a general discharge.