Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9610590C070209
Original file (9610590C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his general discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  He feels he should have been given a medical discharge.  His medical problems affected his judgment.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant’s military records show:

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 July 1972.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13A (Field Artillery Basic).

On 8 September 1972 and 22 January 1973, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for breaking restriction and failing to report, respectively.

The applicant was hospitalized for a head injury from 23 February  - 8 March 1973.  He underwent surgery to repair a skull fracture.  The injury was in line of duty.  The applicant later complained of chronic headaches with exertion, and he was eventually given a temporary profile for running or strenuous physical activity; no handling of heavy materials, to include weapons; no overhead work; no push-ups or pull-ups.

Between May 1973 and February 1974, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15 on three separate occasions for failure to report and being absent without leave (AWOL), AWOL, and disobeying a lawful order.

On 8 April 1974, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.  On his Report of Medical History, the applicant checked “head injury” but made no mention of any medical complaints.

In a memorandum dated 25 April 1974, his commander noted the applicant was unwilling to accept authority or simple responsibility for personal hygiene and barracks cleanliness and he used his profile only when it suited him (for example, he participated in rappelling and company A&R (athletics and recreation).

On 29 April 1974, his commander recommended the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 for unsuitability.

On 29 April 1974, the applicant acknowledged the separation action, waived his right to consideration of his case by a board of officers, personal appearance before such a board and representation by counsel.  He made no statement on his own behalf.

On 2 May 1974, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed he receive a general discharge.

On 14 May 1974, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 with a general discharge.  He had completed 1 year, 8 months and 17 days of creditable active service and had   42 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  At the time, Chapter 13 contained the policy and outlined the procedures for separating an individual for unsuitability when it was clearly established that it was unlikely that he would develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.

The applicant was examined by the VA in January 1980.  The examiner noted in the applicant’s medical history “He did have a neurosurgical procedure but denies any neurologic deficit after the operation.  He did reasonably well until about two or three months ago when he had two blackout spells within a short period of time.”

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant's record of disciplinary infractions began before he received his injury.  

3.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  He waived his right to consideration of his case by a board of officers.  His record of disciplinary actions during that term of enlistment does not warrant a characterization of fully honorable.

4.  The applicant made no mention of health problems on his Report of Medical History.  The VA documentation he submits as evidence states he did not experience any problems until sometime in 1979, five years after his discharge.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




                                Loren G. Harrell
					 	Director
						

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053079C070420

    Original file (2001053079C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 25 February 1974, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. He made no mention on his SF Form 88 that he had had school problems or that he had been treated for any mental condition.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110015345

    Original file (20110015345.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The applicant's service medical records are not available for review. Because the applicant's medical condition was not medically unfitting for retention at the time in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501, there was no basis for medical retirement or separation.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010351

    Original file (20120010351.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 25 March 1974, he was seen for back pain. However, he completed a physical examination on 23 March 1974 that showed he was qualified for separation. On 2 August 1974, he was issued a DA Form 3349 by a medical doctor at Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) for a temporary medical profile for low back pain.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010104

    Original file (20120010104.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides a psychiatric evaluation, discharge summary, and DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty). 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. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025385

    Original file (20100025385.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. This is reinforced by his statement when he requested discharge, that harassment had turned him to drug use, that his command was prejudiced, and that he had family problems. His 303 days of AWOL is certainly not acceptable conduct and performance.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022709

    Original file (20100022709.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    A Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination) and a Standard Form 93 (Report of Medical History) show he received a medical examination on 23 October 1973. The evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for correction of his record to show he was discharged for medical reasons. The applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge and requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064938C070421

    Original file (2001064938C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation for physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 shows that Company F, 52d Infantry was awarded the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal, First Class Unit Citation for the period 20 December 1967 – July 1968. The Board notes that the applicant had a permanent L3 physical profile as a result of his second set of injuries received in combat.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711673

    Original file (9711673.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    : The applicant’s military records show:On 28 March 1972, he enlisted in the Regular Army. On 7 March 1974, the applicant received a counseling statement concerning his conduct. On 7 August 1974, the applicant’s commander initiated separation proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 for unsuitability, apathy.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9310249

    Original file (9310249.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The hospital documents indicate, in effect, that the applicant had a long history of drug abuse, "LSD," and recently speed; that he had a history of maladjustment; that he had been seen at the Mental Hygiene Clinic; that he had been evaluated by a psychiatrist who found the applicant as non-rehabilitatible; that the psychiatrist advised against a rehabilitation program at Fort Shafter, Hawaii; and that the psychiatrist recommended the applicant's separation under chapter 13 of Army...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011227C070208

    Original file (20040011227C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    This medical record indicates the applicant applied for separation from the military under the provisions of Army Regulation 40-501 due to asthma. Chapter 7 of this regulation provides that the basic purpose of the physical profile serial system is to provide an index to the overall functional capacity of an individual and is used to assist the unit commander and personnel officer in their determination of what duty assignments the individual is capable of performing, and...