BOARD DATE: 19 September 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160003829 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: 19 September 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160003829 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 decision of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records set forth in Docket Number AR20120019114, dated 21 May 2013. ______________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: 19 September 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160003829 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 the previous Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) decision in Docket Number AR20120019114, dated 21 May 2013. Specifically, he requests his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that he is a recognized citizen of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and feels his discharge was unfair and has character letters that attest to his character. He further states he was only 18 years old when he served and he was subjected to racial indignities; he was ridiculed and compromised because of his color. He refused to be subjected to racial epithets; he just wouldn't accept the way he was treated. 3. The applicant provides two letters of support. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records that were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR20120019114 on 21 May 2013. 2. The applicant provides a new argument and new evidence in the form of two character letters, wherein he contends he was unfairly treated and unfairly discharged. This statement and his character letters were not considered by the Board in its initial consideration of his request; therefore, they constitute a new argument and new evidence that will now be considered by the Board. 3. The applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 30 November 1962. Upon the completion of his initial training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 111.07 (Light Weapons Infantryman). 4. Before a summary court-martial at Fort Ord, CA, the applicant was convicted, on or about 6 February 1963, of failing to obey orders. The court sentenced him to confinement at hard labor for 30 days and a forfeiture of $50.00 pay. The sentence was adjudged and approved on 8 February 1963; however, the approving authority approving a lesser sentence by suspending the confinement for 30 days. 5. The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on the following dates for the following offenses: a. On 11 March 1963, at Fort Ord, CA, for being insubordinate in disrespectful language toward a senior noncommissioned officer, on or about 8 March 1963. b. On 27 March 1963, at Fort Ord, CA, for failing to obey a lawful order, on or about 26 March 1963. c. On 18 July 1963, at Fort Bragg, NC, for failure to perform his duties as instructed, to wit: failing to properly clean his weapon, on or about 18 July 1963. d. On 12 September 1963, at Fort Bragg, NC, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty, on or about 12 September 1963. e. On 1 October 1963, at Fort Bragg, NC, for being disrespectful in language toward a senior noncommissioned officer, on or about 26 September 1963. f. On 12 November 1963, at Fort Bragg, NC, for breaking restriction, on or about 11 November 1963. 6. Before a special court-martial at Fort Bragg, NC, the applicant was convicted, on 30 November 1963, of violating Article 121 of the UCMJ; specifically, he stole the property of another Soldier, on or about 6 November 1963. a. His sentence was adjudged on 30 November 1963; his sentence consisted of confinement at hard labor for three months, forfeiture of $55.00 pay per month for three months, and to be reduced to the rank/grade of private (PV1)/E-1. b. The sentence was approved on 30 November 1963, however, the confinement was reduced to hard labor for two months and suspended for two months unless the suspension is sooner vacated. 7. Before a special court-martial at Fort Bragg, NC, the applicant was convicted, on 8 January 1964, of violating two specifications of Article 86 of the UCMJ; specifically, without proper authority, he left his appointed place of duty, to wit: hard labor detail, on or about 14 December 1963 and on or about 15 December 1963. a. The sentence was adjudged on 8 January 1964; his sentence consisted of confinement at hard labor for two months and forfeiture of $55.00 pay per month for two months. b. The sentence was approved and ordered to be duly executed on 9 January 1964; he would be committed to the Fort Bragg post stockade for confinement. 8. Special Court-Martial Number 4, issued by Headquarters, 1st Airborne Battle Group, 504th Infantry, Fort Bragg, NC on 7 February 1964, lessened the unexecuted portion of his sentence to confinement at hard labor to 15 days and without conferment for 15 days, but the confinement at hard labor for 15 days was suspended for 15 days unless sooner vacated. 9. The applicant underwent a physical examination on 29 April 1964, in which he was found to have no disqualifying mental or physical defects sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels. 10. The applicant was provided a psychiatric examination on 1 May 1964, in which he was found to have no disqualifying mental defects sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels. He was found to be mentally responsible, distinguish from right and wrong and to adhere to the right. He was mental capable to understand and participate in any action by the chain of command. Additionally, he was diagnosed with situational maladjustment and was recommended by the licensed psychiatrist to be separated from the service. 11. The applicant's record is void of a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge process. However, his record contains a DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) that identifies the authority and reason for his discharge. 12. The applicant was discharged on 11 May 1964. His DD Form 214 confirms he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 (Undesirable Habits or Traits of Character, Enlisted Men, Discharge), SPN (Separation Program Number) 28B, by reason of unfitness - frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. He was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate and directed to be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade, if appropriate. He completed 1 year, 3 months, and 23 days of creditable active service and he had 49 days of lost time. 13. The applicant's record is void of evidence, nor does he provide any, that supports his contention that he was subjected to racial abuse or ridiculed because of his ethnicity. 14. The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. The ADRB determined, on 11 January 1967 that he was properly and equitably discharged and denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. 15. The applicant provides two letters of support attesting to his good work habits, good citizenship, intelligence, and responsible nature. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABMCR) 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. 2. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, governed general policies and procedures for the separation of enlisted personnel, including appropriate service characterizations. This regulation provided that: a. 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. b. 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. 3. Army Regulation 635-208, then in effect, set forth the policy for administrative separation for unfitness. Paragraph 3 of the regulation provided that individuals would be discharged by reason of unfitness when their records were characterized by one or more of the following: a) frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities; b) sexual perversion; c) drug addiction; d) an established pattern of shirking; and/or e) an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts. This regulation prescribed that an undesirable discharge was normally issued unless the particular circumstances warranted a general or an honorable discharge. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant requests that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant contends he was treated unfairly and he would not be ridiculed or abused because of his race, which led to his misconduct. His record is void of documentation that shows he was treated unfairly or that shows his chain of command was arbitrary or capricious in their actions. 3. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the Army. However, his record contains a DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 11 May 1964 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 by reason of unfitness (frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities) with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. 4. The evidence of record confirms the applicant demonstrated he could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of Army personnel, as evidenced by his record of indiscipline that included six Article 15s and three court-martial convictions. The evidence shows that based on his continued misconduct his chain of command found him unfit for continued military service and initiated separation actions against him. 5. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and there is no indication of procedural errors that would have jeopardized his rights. Additionally, it must also be presumed that the type of discharge directed and the reason for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case and his overall record of military service. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160003829 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160003829 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2