| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Vic Whitney | Analyst |
| Mr. John H. Kern | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Margaret V. Thompson | Member | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable and that his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) reflect that he was a high school graduate.
APPLICANT STATES: That he did nothing wrong while in the service and that he was kidnapped by an anti-black group for 30 days. He submits a statement from a state prison that states his inmate records show he had a high school diploma as of 18 June 1965.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was inducted and entered active duty on 19 October 1967. While still in training he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for absence from his place of duty. He completed training in field artillery and was assigned to Vietnam.
While in Vietnam he was convicted by a summary court-martial of 3 days AWOL. Additionally, he was punished twice under Article 15, UCMJ for two specifications of absence from his place of duty, disobeying a lawful order and a general regulation, and failure to report.
On 6 March 1969, he was command referred for a psychiatric evaluation. The resulting diagnosis was passive-aggressive personality. He was able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right. He did not have a mental or physical condition that qualified for disposition through medical channels.
On 7 March 1969, he was informed of the commander’s intent to recommend separation for unsuitability. After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and to submit statements in his own behalf. The commander forwarded the recommendation for separation through command channels on 10 March 1969, citing the applicant's frequent misconduct and failed attempts at counseling and rehabilitation.
The separation authority approved the request and directed separation under honorable conditions (general). Effective 21 March 1969, the applicant was separated under the authority of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability. He had 1 year, 5 months, and 3 days creditable service. His lost time due to AWOL is not recorded on his DD Form 214. His civilian education is listed as 11 years.
The applicant’s statement of personnel history, prepared in his own hand at the time of induction, shows his education as the 11th grade and that he was not a high school graduate. The statement from the state prison, that the applicant had graduated from high school on 18 June 1965, does not say what evidence the statement was based on.
Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel for unsuitability. It provided, in pertinent part, for discharge due to unsuitability of those individuals who displayed a lack of appropriate interest and/or an inability to expend effort constructively. 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.
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. 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. When provided the opportunity to provide a statement in his own behalf he declined to do so. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for that separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
2. There is no evidence of record to substantiate the applicant's claim that he was held for 30 days by an anti-black group. There is no evidence in the available records to demonstrate that the applicant was the victim of racial prejudice.
3. Notwithstanding the statement from the state prison, the evidence of record shows that the applicant was not a high school graduate at the time of his induction.
4. 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
__jk___ __mt____ __mm______ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001052521 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010417 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19690321 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-212 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.02 |
| 2. | 100.00 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070014641
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 February 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070014641 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 DD Form 214 he was issued shows he had completed 3 months and 17 days of active service that was characterized as under honorable conditions. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018638
He states he was never offered counsel at the time of his discharge. On 31 July 1970, after consulting with counsel, he acknowledged the proposed action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability). The evidence of record also shows he stated that he felt negatively towards the Army and he would continue to go AWOL if not discharged.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020944
The applicant requests that his general discharge be changed to a medical discharge. Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability. There is no evidence in the applicant's record nor did the applicant submit any evidence showing he was being considered for a medical discharge from the military.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070442C070402
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable and that the reason and authority be changed. Notwithstanding the applicant's youth, immaturity, background, family problems or psychiatric diagnosis, he had demonstrated the capacity for honorable service by the completion of training, early promotion and approximately a year of service without a discreditable incident of record. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607515C070209
The applicant was assigned to Fort Dix for basic training. A 25 January 1971 report of medical examination indicates that the applicant was medically qualified for discharge with a physical profile of 1 1 1 1 1 1. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058341C070421
Because of the paralysis and his emotional inability (to function in the Army), it was recommended he be separated as soon as possible. The applicant’s service medical records are not available. There is no evidence to show that anyone recommended the applicant receive a medical discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110009399
On 26 November 1969, the applicant's commander initiated a request to discharge the applicant for unsuitability under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability). There is no evidence that shows he was diagnosed with PTSD or any mental condition prior to his discharge sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels. Although the applicant contends he should have been given a medical discharge, the evidence of record...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000919
Thereafter, the type of discharge and the character of service was to be determined solely by the individual's military record during the current enlistment. However, it now appears the applicants overall service record and his diagnosed character and behavior disorder (now known as personality disorder) warrant upgrading his discharge to fully honorable as directed by the above-referenced Army memoranda. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050005165C070206
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 1 November 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050005165 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 served in Vietnam for the period 12 June 1968 through 10 July 1969. The medical officer recommended the applicant be administratively separated from the military under the provisions of Army Regulation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002585
He respectfully requests reconsideration of the Board's decision to correct his military records to show he was discharged with a general under honorable conditions discharge. The applicant's request for reconsideration of his request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge because his family was under extreme financial hardship during the period of service under review and based on his post-service conduct and achievements was carefully considered. Records show...