IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 September 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150014385 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 IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 September 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150014385 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 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 September 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150014385 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, in effect, an upgrade of his character of service from under conditions other than honorable to honorable service. 2. The applicant states his characterization of service was based on letters of indebtedness. He acknowledges that he was foolish to accept this discharge because he was immature at age 24. Nevertheless, he believes his discharge is unfair. He completed 5-1/2 years of service and his commander, 1LT SVH discharged him because he had a personal grievance against him. a. He was approximately 19 or 20 years old when he served in France, and it was during this assignment that he first met second Lieutenant (2LT) SVH. The applicant was the company driver. One weekend he was called to the officers' quarters to drive three officers and four women back to the women's residence in Nancy, France, after a party. The officers and the women were all very intoxicated; 2LT SVH was one of the officers. The applicant recalls having trouble driving and reading the European road signs. 2LT SVH took over driving and said the applicant was unsafe. One of the officers broke his leg jumping off a piano that weekend at the officers' party. During this assignment, he had regular run-ins with 2LT SVH down town and on post. The applicant was a private first class (PFC); he and the other enlisted men thought that 2LT SVH was cool because he frequently flattered and praised them. b. After returning to the states, the Army placed him on temporary duty for a maneuver in which he played war games. The maneuver was in the Mojave Desert and the men usually only worked half days because of the heat. It was hot and the first sergeant would bring a truck filled with ice-cold soda and beer to the men at noon. One afternoon, the applicant had been drinking a lot of beer. He walked by the S-2 or S-3 tent and smelled fresh barbecued chicken. He looked into the tent and nobody was there, but the barbeque was still on and it was loaded with chicken legs, the applicant took a chicken leg. 2LT SVH, now a first lieutenant (1LT), accused him of stealing food. The applicant informed 1LT SVH that the Army's food was for everyone. 1LT SVH responded that the chicken was not the Army's food and stated he had purchased the chicken with his own money. Then 1LT SVH humiliated the applicant in front of other Soldiers and ordered the applicant to dig a foxhole and do 50 push-ups as punishment. The applicant refused. c. Later, after returning to his unit, a new/acting first sergeant (1SG) denied him a 30-day leave of absence even though his previous 1SG had already approved it. The applicant took 30 days of leave without permission. He also discussed an incident involving a vehicle (a 1957 Mercury) he purchased that his commander, 1LT SVH, ordered him to return to the dealership. Later, 1LT SVH told him that he’s going to be discharged from the Army even though he only had a few more months before he could reenlist for 3 more years and transfer to another unit. The Army would not assign him to Fort Story, VA. He wanted to make the service his career, but he was reduced to the rank of E-3. 3. The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the period ending 15 February 1966 and a self-authored statement. 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 completed two consecutive periods of active duty service before his final reenlistment on 22 July 1963. 3. He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on four occasions between 6 April 1964 and 18 January 1966 for the following offenses: * being absent without leave (AWOL) for 9 hours on 6 April 1964 and 5 and a half hours on 13 April 1964 * violating an Army regulation by possessing a .22 caliber rifle, which was not registered with the Provost Marshal's Office * violating an Army regulation by possessing a firearm on the Fort Sill Reservation after dark * being AWOL from on or about 10 to 17 January 1966 4. His service record includes two convictions by a special court-martial on 28 September 1964 and 22 May 1965 for the following offenses: * being AWOL from on or about 8 June to 7 July 1964 * being AWOL from on or about 1 to 30 April 1965 5. On 30 December 1965, his commanding officer requested he be barred from reenlistment in the Regular Army because he possessed habits and interests, which required repeated corrective or disciplinary action. His commanding officer listed his offenses as: * failure to repair for headcount (4 May 1963) * AWOL (from on or about 16 to 17 July 1963, 6 April 1964, 13 April 1964, 8 June to 7 July 1964, and from 1 to 30 April 1965) * no post tags, no tail lights, and deficient vehicle (on 22 October 1963, 27 November 1963, 26 February 1964, and 28 November 1964) * investigation of burglary (11 March 1964) * investigation of molesting (civilian charge) (3 February 1965) * assault and battery (civilian charge) (9 February 1965) * uniform violation (23 March 1965) * escape from confinement and post stockade 6. On 11 January 1966, his commanding officer barred him from reenlistment. 7. His discharge packet is not available for review. His DD Form 214 for the period ending 15 February 1966 shows the Army discharged him on this date under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 (Unfitness, Frequent Incidents of a Discreditable Nature) with service characterized as under conditions other than honorable. He completed 2 years, 2 months, and 4 days of active service and he had 174 days of lost time during the period under review. He had completed 4 years, 8 months, and 21 days of total active service. 8. There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-208 set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel who were found unfit or unsuitable for further military service. The regulation provided that members who displayed undesirable habits and traits were subject to separation for unfitness. While the separation authority could grant a general, under honorable conditions discharge or honorable discharge, if warranted by the member's overall record of service. The issuance of an undesirable discharge (i.e., under conditions other than honorable) was normally considered appropriate for members separated under these provisions. 2. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), currently in effect, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a states 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. Paragraph 3-7b, provides that 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: 1. The applicant contends that his discharge was unfair. Although his discharge packet is not available for review, it is presumed the separation authority appropriately directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge based on his overall record of service and the separation action was processed in accordance with the governing regulation. 2. The applicant's service record shows he completed 4 years, 8 months, and 21 days total active service and he had a record of 174 days of lost time. 3. The applicant's service record is void of evidence to support his contention that his commander had a personal grievance against him. 4. The evidence of record shows he received four Article 15s, two court-martial convictions, and he was barred from reenlistment. 5. It appears the separation authority determined the applicant's overall service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty to warrant recommendation of a general or honorable discharge. 6. The available evidence does not show the actions taken in this case were in error or unjust. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150014385 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150014385 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2