| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Member | |
| Ms. Gail J. Wire | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, reconsideration of his request for a medical discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was discharged due to occupational illnesses or disorders in his workplace. He contends that these illnesses started while he was in the Army and that his allergies were aggravated on a daily basis by the cleaning solvents and shoe polishes he utilized. He also contends that as a result of his aggravated allergies, his body developed an allergy hypersensitivity immune system to genetic disorders diagnosed as multi-factorial disorders. In support of his application, he submits a letter, dated 16 September 1998, to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: A Memorandum of Consideration is not available to reflect the basis for the denial of the applicant’s case on 19 May 1965. Therefore, this case is being considered “de novo”.
On 9 August 1964 the applicant underwent an induction medical examination and was found qualified for induction with a physical profile of 112111.
The applicant was inducted on 9 September 1964.
The applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation on 22 October 1964 and was diagnosed with an inadequate personality. The psychiatrist determined that the applicant was mentally responsible both to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings. The psychiatrist recommended that the applicant be separated from the service under the appropriate administrative regulation.
While in basic training, on 23 November 1964, the applicant’s unit commander recommended that he be discharged with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, for unsuitability. The unit commander cited the applicant’s inaptitude, apathy, defective attitudes and inability to expend effort constructively.
After consulting with counsel the applicant waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived representation by counsel and elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf.
On 3 December 1964 the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, for unsuitability and directed that the applicant be furnished a general discharge.
On 9 December 1964 the applicant underwent a separation medical examination and was found qualified for separation with a physical profile of 112111.
Accordingly, on 21 December 1964, the applicant was discharged with an under honorable conditions (a general discharge) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, for unsuitability due to inaptitude, apathy, defective attitudes and inability to expend effort constructively. He had served 3 months and
13 days of total active service.
On 14 March 1973 the Army Discharge Review Board upgraded the applicant’s discharge to honorable.
Army Regulation 635-209, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel for unsuitability. It provided, in pertinent part, for discharge due to unsuitability based on inaptitude, apathy, defective attitudes and 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.
Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 7, physical profiling, 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 if reclassification action is warranted. Four numerical designations (1-4) are used to reflect different levels of functional capacity in six factors (PULHES): P-physical capacity or stamina, U-upper extremities, L-lower extremities, H-hearing and ears, E-eyes, and S-psychiatric. Numerical designator "1" under all factors indicates that an individual is considered to possess a high level of medical fitness and, consequently, is medically fit for any military assignment. Numerical designators "2" and "3" indicate that an individual has a medical condition or physical defect which requires certain restrictions in assignment within which the individual is physically capable of performing military duty. The individual should receive assignments commensurate with his or her functional capacity.
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 Board noted the applicant’s contentions that he was discharged due to occupational illnesses or disorders in his workplace and that these illnesses started while he was in the Army. However, service medical records do not indicate any medical condition incurred while entitled to receive basic pay which was so severe as to render the applicant medically unfit for retention on active duty. At the time of the separation physical examination, competent medical authority determined that the applicant was then medically qualified for separation with a physical profile of 112111. Accordingly, the applicant was separated from active duty for unsuitability, not as the result of a medical condition.
2. 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.
3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
4. The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.
5. 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.
6. 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
INW_____ FNE____ GJW____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001055263 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | 19650519 |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010809 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (GD) Army Discharge Review Board upgraded the applicant’s discharge to honorable on 19730314 |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19641221 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-209 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Unsuitability due to inaptitude, apathy, defective attitudes and inability to expend effort constructively. |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 108.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000198
He indicated he fully understood that if the discharge authority approved the recommendation for discharge, the discharge authority would determine the type of discharge he would receive. On 11 April 1964, a board of officers recommended his discharge from the service by reason of unsuitability (apathy, defective attitude, and inability to expend effort constructively) with the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. Also on 11 April 1964, having determined that the applicant was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007736
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 3 February 1966, he was discharged under honorable conditions (a general discharge) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability due to apathy, defective attitudes and inability to expend effort constructively. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012289
The applicant requests, in effect, upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. The evaluator, an Army psychiatrist, recommended the applicant be separated from military service under Army Regulation 635-209 (Personnel Separations-Discharge-Unsuitability). 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007358
The ADRB case report also confirms that on 3 August 1964, the unit commander initiated action to discharge the applicant from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 (Personnel Separations - Discharge -Unsuitability), by reason of unsuitability (apathy, defective attitude, and inability to expend effort constructively). However, the Brotzman Memorandum requires that the revised provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 be applied retroactively when reviewing applications for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088778C070403
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 to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. A neuropsychiatric...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9508100C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be corrected to an honorable medical disability retirement. That recommendation was approved and the applicant was issued a General Discharge Certificate for unsuitability on 15 March 1965 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209. The application is dated 16 March 1995 and the applicant has not explained or otherwise satisfactorily demonstrated by competent evidence that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009883
On 1 September 1960, the separation authority determined that the applicant should be eliminated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 for apathy and directed the applicant receive a general discharge. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 19 September 1960 with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability with the separation program number (SPN) 264 for unsuitability due character and behavior disorders. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050018019C070206
On 27 June 1961, the convening authority approved the sentence but suspended the confinement at hard labor for 3 months. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140021626
On 17 October 1964, the applicant's immediate commander initiated separation action against the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 by reason of unsuitability. On 22 October 1964, having determined that the applicant was unsuitable for further military service, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 by reason of unsuitability and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate. As a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008697
There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. There is no evidence of record, and the applicant provides insufficient evidence, that shows the applicant was found mentally (or physically) unfit for retention in military service during the period of service under review. _______ _ X_______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of...