Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709051
Original file (9709051.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
1. The applicant states that he was sent home in June of 1971 from a hospital and informed that he would be sent his DD Form 214. The Army never contacted him. He feels he is entitled to correction of his military records to reflect the fact he was on active duty until 28 February 1996 and that he was retired from the Army.
2. The applicant’s military records show that he was born on 5 June 1949. He was inducted into the Army on 23 June 1969 for 2 years. He served in Vietnam from 15 December 1969 until 14 November 1970. While there he was awarded the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star Medal with “V” device.

3. Apparently, the applicant departed Vietnam on 14 November 1970 with an ultimate of assignment to Fort Benning, GA with a reporting date of 23 December 1970. He was authorized 30 days leave enroute and while on leave he was admitted to an Air Force hospital. While in the hospital a military policeman (MP) from an AWOL Apprehension Team told him he was absent without leave (AWOL). The applicant showed him his DA Form 31; the MP later told him he was discharged, to go home after he got out of the hospital and his discharge would be mailed to him. For 25 years the applicant attempted to obtain a copy of his DD Form 214 through the VA. Finally, he was told he was AWOL and to report to the personnel confinement facility at Fort Sill, OK to be outprocessed.

4. Fort Sill explained his case to the Department of the Army Separations and Appeals Branch. The Branch said that at the time, a 180-day rule allowed a soldier returning from Vietnam who as within 180 days of his expiration term of service (ETS) to receive an early ETS; therefore, Fort Sill should prepare his discharge papers and backdate them to 22 June 1971.

5. On 28 February 1996, separation orders and a DD Form 214 were issued to the applicant. He was honorably discharged effective 22 June 1971, for completion of required active service, in pay grade E-3. His DD Form 214 erroneously shows he had 2 years and 18 days of creditable active service, with no days lost.

6. On 29 February 1996, the Department of Veterans Affairs granted him a disability rating of 100% for service connected post-traumatic stress disorder.

7. Title 38, U. S. Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service. The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service. The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned. Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual’s medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency.

 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. Although administrative negligence on the part of the Army caused the delay in issuance of the DD Form 214, the applicant was effectively out from under military control in or around December 1970. Had his discharge been effective in February 1996, he would have been charged with 25 years of AWOL, still not have been eligible for retirement and would have forfeited his honorable discharge.

3. If the late issuance of the DD Form 214 caused the applicant to miss out on any monetary benefits from the VA, he is advised that he must attempt to work through the VA for resolution.

4. However, there are three minor errors on the applicant’s DD Form 214.

5. In view of the foregoing, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

 RECOMMENDATION :

1. That the applicant’s DD Form 214, blocks 12a, 12b and 12f be corrected to show he entered active duty 1969 06 23; his net active service was 0002 years 0000 months and 0000 days; and his foreign service was 0000 years 0011 months and 0000 days, respectively.

2. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.


 BOARD VOTE :
GRANT

 GRANT FORMAL HEARING

 DENY APPLICATION
                                                     CHAIRPERSON

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709051C070209

    Original file (9709051C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    Fort Sill explained his case to the Department of the Army Separations and Appeals Branch. His DD Form 214 erroneously shows he had 2 years and 18 days of creditable active service, with no days lost. The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9509199C070209

    Original file (9509199C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Approved

    The medical advisor notes that the applicant expressed no reason for going AWOL other than the fact that he did not like the Army. Notwithstanding the foregoing conclusion, the Board notes that the applicant was past his ETS during all three periods of time he was declared AWOL, and he had not signed a consent affidavit to remain on active duty. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected: a. by showing that the individual concerned was retained on...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001535

    Original file (20150001535.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    These orders also assigned him to the U.S. Army Transfer Point, Fort Campbell, with a reporting date of 2 February 1971, for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004106906C070208

    Original file (2004106906C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 March 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR2004106906 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions or to a fully honorable discharge. This program, known as the DOD Discharge Review...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064297C070421

    Original file (2001064297C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for misconduct (fraudulent entry, conviction by civil court, and absence without leave or desertion).

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003134

    Original file (20090003134.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge or general discharge under honorable conditions. Item 38 (Record of Assignments), in pertinent part, shows he was assigned to Company A, 65th Engineer Battalion, 25th Infantry Division (USARPAC, RVN) from 22 October 1969 through 8 October 1970. c. Item 41 (Awards and Decorations), in pertinent part, shows the applicant was awarded the Purple Heart per Headquarters,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004344

    Original file (20090004344.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    When separation for unsuitability was warranted, an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual’s entire record. The evidence of record shows the applicant’s separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability was administratively correct, all requirements of law and regulations were met, the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process, and the applicant was properly...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058421C070421

    Original file (2001058421C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The VA may not be considering these two discharges, particularly the discharge of 7 September 1970, to be completed terms of service.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060007452C070205

    Original file (20060007452C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his bad conduct discharge (BCD), characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), be upgraded. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3-year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016773

    Original file (20100016773.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 30 December 1970, the applicant’s commander recommended the applicant's separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability) for unfitness. 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.