IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 24 September 2015
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150002151
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 his discharge be upgraded to honorable.
2. The applicant states that during his three years of military service he only had one minor infraction.
3. The applicant provides his DD Forms 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the periods 9 February to 13 April 1962 and 14 April 1962 to 11 February 1965.
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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 February 1962. He was released from active duty on 13 April 1962 and his service was characterized as honorable.
3. He reenlisted on 14 April 1962 and was assigned to the 549th Quartermaster Company, Japan. A review of the applicants record shows he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for:
* failing to obey a lawful order of a noncommissioned officer (NCO)
* failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty
* being disrespectful in language and/or deportment to an NCO
* being absent without proper pass
4. On 6 August 1964, court-martial charges were preferred against him for disobeying a lawful order of a commissioned officer. He pled guilty and was found guilty of this charge. His punishment included reduction to private/(E-1), forfeiture of 2/3 of one months pay, and a 60-day restriction.
5. On 22 September 1964, court-martial charges were preferred against him for breaking restriction. He pled guilty and was found guilty of this charge. His punishment was forfeiture of 2/3 of one months pay.
6. The applicant was notified of his bar to reenlistment on 6 January 1965. His commander cited numerous infractions which included four Article 15s, a special court-martial, two summary courts-martial, and consideration for elimination by an administrative separation board (but retained). He further stated that the applicant had been counseled, cajoled, disciplined and closely supervised, all in an effort to correct his unacceptable practices and make him a decent Soldier; however, the applicant had disregarded all efforts.
7. On 11 February 1965, he was released from active duty under the provisions of paragraph 7, Army Regulation 635-205, as an overseas returnee, and he was issued a general discharge. The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time confirms he completed a total of 2 years, 11 months, and 16 days of total active service.
8. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) requesting an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations.
9. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The version in effect at the time of the applicants discharge provided for issuing a general discharge to substandard personnel at the completion of their term of service.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The evidence of record confirms the applicant had been convicted by a special and two summary court-martials and had accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ on four separate occasions. This extensive disciplinary history clearly rendered the overall quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.
2. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, 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.
3. In view of the above, there is no basis for granting the applicants 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) AR20150002151
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150002151
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002224
The applicants military personnel records contain a copy of Headquarters, Presidio of San Francisco, California, Special Court-Martial Order Number 324, dated 18 December 1964. There is no evidence of record that shows the applicant served in Vietnam at any time during his military service. The evidence of record also shows that the DD Form 214 with an effective date of 10 April 1961 documents this period of the applicants honorable active duty service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003523
Table 6-1 stated in pertinent part that the DD Form 2329 (Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial) would be filed together with the DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) and Memorandum, opinion or letter of legal review in the MPRJ. There is no evidence in the available record and the applicant did not provide evidence that shows he was erroneously convicted, due to a page being removed from the sign-in book. The applicant provided no such evidence to this Board.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003426
There is no indication that the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that Boards 15-year statute of limitations. The applicant submitted a self-authored statement and three character witness statements as follows: a. in his statement, dated 10 January 2009, the applicant states that the only problem he had during his military career was one instance of nonjudicial punishment for being late. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000449
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 September 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110000449 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Counsel states that after careful review of the applicant's request and the evidentiary evidence, the issues raised on his DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record Under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552) amply advance his contentions and substantially reflect the probative facts needed for equitable review. On 28 February 1966, the...
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 | CY2011 | 20110001303
On 1 June 1967, the separation authority approved the recommendation to discharge the applicant from the Army under the provisions of section VI of Army Regulation 635-206 and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 5 June 1967, the applicant was accordingly discharged. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of section VI of Army Regulation 635-206, due to conviction by a civil court and he was issued an Undesirable Discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011684
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 January 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120011684 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The evidence of record shows that during the period of service under review the FSM: * was convicted by two special courts-martial * had a total of 389 days of time lost * completed less than 7 months of his 3-year service obligation 5.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003602
He adds he enlisted in the Army in June 1963, completed his training, and was stationed overseas in Korea. Headquarters, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, General Court-Martial Order Number 40, dated 29 January 1966, shows that the applicant's sentence to a bad conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances becoming due on and after the date of the convening authoritys action, and confinement at hard labor for 6 months was affirmed pursuant to Article 66. The applicant presented no...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070008932
However, the DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) the applicant was issued at the time of his discharge confirms he was discharged on 23 February 1965 for unfitness, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 (Personnel Separations) and his characterization of service was under other than honorable conditions with issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018002
Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Military Awards), in effect at the time, provided that the Army Good Conduct Medal was awarded to individuals who have completed a qualified period of active duty enlisted service. The evidence of record shows he served in Vietnam from on or about 23 September 1969 to 22 September 1970; therefore, he served a qualifying period for award of the Vietnam Service Medal and is entitled to correction of his DD Form 214 to show this award. As a result, the Board...