BOARD DATE: 22 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001144 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x_____ ___x_____ _x_____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 22 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001144 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decisions of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AC95-10545, dated 24 January 1996, and Docket Number  AR2000036487, dated 15 August 2005. ____________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. BOARD DATE: 22 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001144 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 reconsideration of his prior requests for an upgrade of his general discharge under honorable conditions. 2. The applicant states: a. It is an injustice that he was given a general discharge under honorable conditions. He had a problem with alcohol, which led to his discharge. He has proof he was otherwise an exceptional Soldier. All of the problems he had were off-duty fights in bars caused by alcohol. b. His discharge was racially motivated. There was racial bias in his unit, mainly on the part of the black major who recommended his discharge and as evidenced in the biased hearing he received. c. He has led a respectful life since his discharge, which would validate a discharge upgrade. He has done a lot to promote America by talking to groups about the injured and deceased veterans who gave their lives for their country. d. He requests a personal appearance before the Board in order to prove that a mistake was made at the time of his discharge. 3. The applicant provides: * self-authored statement * Headquarters, 3d Howitzer Battalion, 17th Artillery Regiment, Special Orders Number 155, dated 24 September 1960 * Headquarters, 3d Howitzer Battalion, 17th Artillery Regiment, Board of Officers proceedings, dated 23 November 1960 * self-authored comments regarding board of officers proceedings * self-authored poem, "The Bicycle Ride Thru 48 States" * sheet of photographs titled "Summer of 1987" * witness statement, dated 4 July 1995 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's cases by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AC95-10545 on 24 January 1996 and Docket Number AR2000036487 on 15 August 2000. 2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 June 1958. 3. A DA Form 26 (Record of Court Martial Conviction) shows he was convicted by summary courts-martial on three occasions between November 1958 and November 1960 for being absent without leave from 11 November 1958 through 17 November 1958, unlawfully striking Sergeant S____ on 30 November 1959, and assaulting a military policeman who was then in the execution of his duties by pushing him against a wall on 30 October 1960. 4. The applicant provided Headquarters, 3d Howitzer Battalion, 17th Artillery Regiment, Special Orders Number 155, dated 24 September 1960, which show he qualified as Expert with the .30 caliber M-1 carbine rifle on 16 August 1960 with a score of 198. He annotated on the side of the orders that he was number one in the battalion and requests to be allowed to show the board he was a good Soldier. 5. The applicant provided Headquarters, 3d Howitzer Battalion, 17th Artillery Regiment, Board of Officers proceedings, dated 23 November 1960, which show the board convened on 21 November 1960 to determine whether he should be eliminated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unfitness) as undesirable. The proceedings show that after carefully considering all the evidence, the board found his military record was characterized by frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities and recommended his general discharge under honorable conditions. 6. The applicant's discharge packet is not in his available records for review. 7. On 9 January 1960, he was discharged under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 and assigned separation program number 28B (Unfitness Due to Frequent Involvement in Incidents of a Discreditable Nature with Civil or Military Authorities). His DD Form 214 shows he completed 2 years, 6 months, and 4 days of total active service with 6 days of lost time. 8. The applicant provided two pages of self-authored comments that correspond directly to specific paragraphs within the proceedings of the board of officers, which he appears to have provided in a Department of Veterans Affairs hearing held on an unspecified date. He states: a. Major P____ made a statement to the applicant's black buddy that he was out to get him, but Major P____ didn't know him. He was due to rotate in 10 days and had served his 2 years in Germany. The hearing is what caused him to miss his rotation date. b. He did not know at the time, but Captain S____ did a poor job of representing him before the board as his defense counsel. He was only a captain vice being a major. c. He realizes now he should have spoken up when he was asked if he desired to challenge any member of the board or object in any manner. He lacked confidence and self-esteem and was recovering from a mouth/jaw injury wherein his teeth were knocked out. d. Captain T____, his immediate commander, said he knew him, but he didn't know the little things he did to help make the section great. The only things he did to bring a bad name to the battery were several barroom fights, none of those were while in uniform. His comment "in a time of war it would be different" really bothered him. Captain T____ didn't want him in his unit. e. Captain H____ was only there a short amount of time. With his good record as a Soldier and his aggressiveness, he questions how Captain H____ could say he could not trust him in combat. f. First Lieutenant G____ and Captain H____ had nothing but good things to say about him. He was railroaded. g. Of the 15 witnesses he had, the board only listened to 5. They had their minds made up before the hearing. He could have had 1,000 witnesses and it wouldn't have made any difference. All those witnesses had good things to say about him. In peacetime or combat, they would have all fought as a unit. Out of the 2 years in Germany, he served at least 5 months with most of them in the field and they all would have trusted him in combat. 9. He provided a copy of a poem he wrote, "The Bicycle Ride Thru 48 States," detailing his 7,717 mile bicycle trip through the United States in 1987. Accompanying the poem is a sheet of numerous photographs, titled "Summer of 1987," presumably pictorially documenting his bicycle trip. 10. He provided a witness statement from Mr. N____ G____, dated 4 July 1995. The witness states he was on the same gun crew as the applicant, whom he assesses as possibly the best to ever operate an 8-inch self-propelled howitzer. He attests to the applicant's great athletic prowess and what a sharp Soldier he was. Although he realizes the applicant had problems with drinking and got into some fights because of this, the Army never did anything to help him through the hard times. He additionally claims racism was a big problem in the Army at the time, exacerbated on both sides by drinking, which the Army always made it so convenient to do. He recalls the applicant was attacked one night by five black Soldiers, where he was beaten so badly that he needed medical treatment. An investigation was never conducted; it was just assumed the applicant was at fault. He spent 2 years of his life with the applicant and he can attest to what an outstanding Soldier he was. If he ever had to go to war, the applicant was the person he would want to be with and he feels the Army missed a chance to help a good young man change his life and get through the hard times everyone has. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel for unfitness. It stated an individual was subject to separation for unfitness due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. When separation for unfitness was warranted, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate. 2. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – General Provisions for Discharge and Release), in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Section I (General), paragraph 9, stated an honorable discharge was a separation with honor. The issuance of an honorable discharge was conditioned upon proper military behavior and proficient and industrious performance of duty. b. Section I, paragraph 10, stated a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions of an individual whose military record was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. Section I, paragraph 11, stated an undesirable discharge was an administrative separation from the service under conditions other than honorable. It was issued for unfitness, misconduct, or security reasons. 3. 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 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 Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. DISCUSSION: 1. Although the applicant requested to personally appear before the Board, there is sufficient evidence available for fair and impartial consideration of his case without such an appearance. 2. Despite the applicant's claims, there is no evidence in his available records indicating his discharge was the result of racism. The evidence of record shows he was convicted by summary courts-martial on three occasions within 2 years for being absent without leave, unlawfully striking a sergeant, and assaulting a military policeman who was in the execution of his duties. 3. There is no evidence that all requirements of law and regulation were not met and his rights were not fully protected throughout the separation process. He was provided legal counsel and appeared before a board of officers to consider his case, after which he was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with regulations in effect at the time. 4. The applicant's service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty required to merit characterization of his service as honorable. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160001144 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160001144 6 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2