Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710181
Original file (9710181.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the discharge of her spouse, a former servicemember, be upgraded from undesirable to honorable. She notes she feels the undesirable discharge “was to harsh a punishment for his AWOL….”

PURPOSE : To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The former servicemember’s military records show:

He entered active duty in January 1955 and was separated for the purpose of immediate reenlistment in 1957. On
5 November 1958, after returning from a tour of duty in Korea, in pay grade E-5, the former servicemember departed AWOL. He was apprehended by civilian authorities and returned to military control on 22 December 1959.

A January 1960 mental status evaluation concluded the former servicemember showed immaturity with symptomatic habit reaction manifested by AWOL and acute, situation, maladjustment. The evaluating physician noted his motivation for future service was poor but that he was “mentally responsible both to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right if so inclined.” The physician recommended he be administratively separated from the service if a punitive discharge was not ordered by his upcoming court-martial.

The former servicemember was convicted by a general court-martial and sentenced to reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of pay, and 6 months confinement at hard labor.

In June 1960 he was recommended for administrative separation in accordance with Army Regulation 635-208. A second mental status evaluation, conducted on 1 July 1960, again concluded the former servicemember was mentally responsible and able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right. It noted he married shortly after his return to the United States from Korea in 1957 and when his spouse became pregnant he decided to stay with her and not report to his new duty assignment. The evaluating physician indicated the applicant “expresses no interest or motivation in further military service” and recommended administrative separation.

The separation authority approved the recommendation and on 6 September 1960 he was separated with an undesirable discharge. At the time of his separation he had 3 years, 10 months, and 5 days of creditable service and 644 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, provided the authority for discharging enlisted personnel for unfitness. Separation action was to be taken when the commander determined that the best interest of the service would be served by eliminating the individual concerned and: reasonable attempts to rehabilitate or develop the individual to be a satisfactory soldier were unlikely to succeed; or rehabilitation was impracticable, such as in cases of confirmed drug addiction or when the medical and/or personal history indicated that the individual was not amenable to rehabilitation measures; or disposition under other regulations was inappropriate. Unfitness included frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military or civil authorities and an established pattern of shirking. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

There is no evidence that the former servicemember applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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. Failure to file within 3 years may be excused by a correction board if it finds it would be in the interest of justice to do so.

DISCUSSION : The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered on
6 September 1960, the date of separation. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 6 September 1963.

The application is dated 7 December 1997 and neither the applicant nor the former servicemember have explained or otherwise satisfactorily demonstrated by competent evidence that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to apply within the time allotted.

DETERMINATION : The subject application was not submitted within the time required. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested or to excuse the failure to file within the time prescribed by law.

BOARD VOTE :

EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE

GRANT FORMAL HEARING

CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION




                  Karl F. Schneider
                  Acting Director

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710181C070209

    Original file (9710181C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    She notes she feels the undesirable discharge “was to harsh a punishment for his AWOL .” PURPOSE: To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. The evaluating physician noted his motivation for future service was poor but that he was “mentally responsible both to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right if so inclined.” The physician...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710284C070209

    Original file (9710284C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. On 15 April 1960, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, unsuitability, character behavior disorder, with a general discharge. There is no evidence the applicant ever submitted an application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB); for an upgraded discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710284

    Original file (9710284.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 18 May 1959, the applicant was convicted by special court-martial for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 20 March - 23 April 1959. On 15 April 1960, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, unsuitability, character behavior disorder, with a general discharge. Army Regulation 635-209 set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unsuitability.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050017155C070206

    Original file (20050017155C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The unit commander stated as a reason why it would not be considered feasible or appropriate to recommend elimination under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 was the applicant’s attitudes of complete disregard for authority and his attitudes toward life in general. On 7 December 1960, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 with issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. After review of the evidence...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027274

    Original file (20100027274.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 10 June 1963, his unit commander recommended his separation from the service for unfitness with the issuance of an undesirable discharge. His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows: * he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 with a separation program number (SPN) of 28B (Unfitness - Frequent Incidents of a Discreditable Nature with Civil or Military Authorities) * his service was characterized as under other than...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001690

    Original file (20150001690.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    A DA Form 1049 (Personnel Action), dated 2 May 1961, shows the applicant's commanding officer requested an evaluation of the applicant's mental and physical conditions because he was under consideration for elimination from the service for unfitness. A DA Form 1049, dated 14 July 1961, shows the Commander, Special Processing Detachment, Fort Knox, Kentucky, requested an evaluation of the applicant's mental and physical conditions because he was under consideration for elimination from the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060016772

    Original file (20060016772.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 12 June 1957, the applicant’s commander initiated separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness. The commander stated that the applicant had received three NJP, two courts-martial, and was under arrest in quarters pending action by the convening authority on his last conviction. Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, provided the authority for discharging enlisted personnel for unfitness.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021119

    Original file (20100021119.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He submitted a Standard Form 513, dated 17 March 1960, which shows he requested a medical discharge after being told he could be medically discharged for Osgood-Schlatter disease. On 29 September 1960, he acknowledged that his unit commander notified him that he was initiating action which could result in his separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 (Personnel Separations – Unfitness – Frequent Incidents of a Discreditable Nature with Civil or Military...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050015643C070206

    Original file (20050015643C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 August 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050015643 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. On 4 January 1960, the applicant acknowledged that he had been advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness. The separation...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090771C070212

    Original file (2003090771C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was discharged on 27 August 1963. However, the evidence of record shows that prior to the applicant's discharge in August 1963, competent medical authority determined that he was then medically qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111111. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to...