| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Robert J. McGowan | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: That his discharge is unjust. He states that he enlisted in the Army for training and did not get it. When he went to the Inspector General, he was told that he could stay in the Army and get the training he was promised or he could take an HD. He chose the HD. He adds that he did not know of the problem with his discharge until he applied for a handgun permit.
COUNSEL CONTENDS: Counsel makes no statement.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 13 May 1971 for airborne training. Following completion of Basic Combat Training (BCT) at Fort Dix, New Jersey, he was transferred to Fort Polk, Louisiana, for Advanced Individual Training (AIT) in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11H (Heavy Weapons Infantryman). He missed a substantial portion of his AIT due to an emergency leave and a hospitalization and was recommended for recycle to another AIT class in the same MOS.
While at Fort Polk, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. As punishment, he was reduced from private/E-2 to private/E-1, given 14 days' restriction, and ordered to perform 14 days of extra duty.
On 16 September 1971, the applicant's commander notified him that he was being recommended for elimination from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability. A record of counseling showed that from 1 August 1971 to 15 September 1971, he had been counseled 9 times, once by a second lieutenant, 6 times by a captain, and twice by a lieutenant colonel. The applicant acknowledged notification on 16 September 1971, waived all rights, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. He acknowledged that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if given a GD.
On 30 September 1971, the approving authority approved the applicant's separation for unsuitability and directed issuance of a GD. On 8 October 1971, the applicant was discharged with a GD, under the provisions of AR 635-212, for unsuitability. At the time of discharge, the applicant had 4 months and 26 days of creditable service and no lost time.
There is no record of the applicant petitioning the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for a discharge upgrade within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel who were found to be unfit or unsuitable for military service. The regulation further provided, in pertinent part, that service members discharged for unfitness would be furnished an undesirable discharge unless circumstances warranted a general or honorable discharge. Service members discharged for unsuitability would be furnished an honorable or general discharge.
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 this requirement.
2. The applicant’s discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
3. The record does not substantiate the applicant's contention that he was denied any training for which he had enlisted. His enlistment contract called for him to undergo airborne training; this would have occurred following completion of AIT. The applicant did not complete his AIT because he missed too much training; however, his commander recommended that he be recycled into the next available starting class.
4. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant provided any, to show that he registered a complaint with the IG or that the IG conducted an investigation into the matter of the applicant's training.
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
__LLS___ __MHM_ __JTM___ DENY APPLICATION
Carl W. S. Chun
Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records
| CASE ID | AR2001054116 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010906 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19711008 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-212 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A40.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | DIRECTOR |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002572
Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 15 December 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability. At the time the applicant underwent his separation physical/medical examination, he indicated that he had foot and back problems. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012919
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The unit commander indicated the action was based on the applicant's record of AWOL and advised the applicant of his rights. On 12 June 1972, the separation authority approved the separation action and directed that the applicant be discharged for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, and that he be furnished an UD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009929
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). There is no indication that the applicant ever petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15 year statute of limitations. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unsuitability (character and behavior disorder), as...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000260C070206
There is no evidence in the available records to show that she ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board and while they are not supported by either evidence submitted with her application or the evidence of record, they are also not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to her otherwise undistinguished record of service during...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060907C070421
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 2 October 1970, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was separated from the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711080
The unit commander recommended that the applicant be given a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD), and cited the recommendation of medical personnel, who indicated the applicant had a condition which represented a basic character and behavior disorder, as the basis for his action. The applicant’s record of service does not meet the criteria for an under honorable conditions discharge by current Army regulations. Although DOD Directive 1332.28 provides policy for review of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089239C070403
On 27 April 1971, the applicant was given a mental status examination at the Heilbronn Health Clinic. The applicant's chain of command was unanimous in recommending approval of the action and in recommending that the applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 20 May 1971, the appropriate authority, a colonel, approved the applicant's discharge and directed that the applicant be discharged from the service for unsuitability under the provisions of AR...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000989C070206
On 17 October 1969, the applicants unit commander recommended the applicants separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unsuitability (character and behavior disorder). The evidence of record confirms the applicant was separated under unsuitability (character and behavior disorder) provisions of the regulation in effect at the time. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000989C070206
On 17 October 1969, the applicant’s unit commander recommended the applicant’s separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unsuitability (character and behavior disorder). Under current regulations, members separated by reason of personality disorder (character and behavior disorder) must be issued an HD unless they have been convicted by a general court-martial or more than one SPCM. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069958C070402
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. On 24 November 1971, the applicant was separated with a GD. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to...