| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Gale J. Thomas | Analyst |
| Ms. June Hajjar | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas F. Baxter | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, disability separation or retirement.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions because of his medical and psychological problems.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 22 October 1976 he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.
On 14 June 1977 and 14 August 1977 he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for damaging military and civilian property, being drunk and disorderly, and for failure to go to his appointed place of duty. His punishment included extra duty, forfeiture and reduction.
On 20 June 1978 the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of willfully disobeying a lawful order, possessing two ration cards made out in his name for the same ration period, three specifications of assault, being drunk and disorderly, and being absent without leave (AWOL) from 4 May to 12 May 1978. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for six months, forfeiture and reduction to pay grade E-1.
In July 1978, the applicant was enrolled in the Army Drug/Alcohol Program.
On 1 August 1978 the applicant accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ for being drunk and disorderly on 29 July 1978. His punishment was restriction, extra duty and forfeiture.
On 25 August 1978 he accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ for being drunk and disorderly in quarters on 17 August 1978. His punishment was restriction, extra duty and forfeiture.
On 4 October 1978, after consulting with legal counsel the applicant requested to waive his Discharge Physical Examination.
The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not in the available records. However, the applicant's DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) indicates he was discharged on 5 October 1978, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, and issued an UOTHC discharge. His DD Form 214 indicates he had 1 year, 7 months and 8 days of active service and 96 days of lost time.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14, in effect at the time, established policy and prescribed procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories included minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave. Action was to be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it was clearly established that reasonable attempts to rehabilitate or develop the individual to be a satisfactory soldier were unlikely to succeed.
Title 10, United States Code, chapter 61, provides disability retirement or separation for a member who is physically unfit to perform the duties of his office, rank, grade or rating because of disability incurred while entitled to basic pay.
Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 3-3b(1), as amended, provides that for an individual to be found unfit by reason of physical disability, he must be unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating.
Army Regulation 40-501, at paragraph 3-3a, provided, in pertinent part, that performance of duty despite an impairment would be considered presumptive evidence of physical fitness.
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 to show that there was an error or injustice in this case.
2. The evidence of record indicates the applicant did not have any medically unfitting disability which required physical disability processing. Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability retirement or separation.
3. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record.
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
___JH __ __TFB___ __JTM __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001056148 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010816 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 108.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016441
On 4 April 1978, the applicants company commander recommended the applicant be discharged because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Separation), paragraph 14-33b(1). On 22 May 1978, the applicant's company commander stated that applicant had elected to have his case heard before a board of officers and requested personal appearance before that board. The separation authority approved the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078243C070215
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. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001066027C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The available records do not contain any evidence that indicates he was ever coerced and he has provided no evidence to the contrary. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001066027SUFFIXRECONYYYYMMDDDATE BOARDED20020521TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE19800627DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200 DISCHARGE REASONA60.00BOARD...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015848
A Discharge of Personnel for Misconduct memorandum, dated 24 February 1978, wherein the separation authority approved his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), c13, and directed the issuance of an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. A DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) which shows he was discharged in pay grade E-1 on 27 February 1978, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710378
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 30 October 1980, his commander notified him of his intent to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct-...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9508409C070209
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military and medical records show: On 19 January 1967, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA). His punishments included forfeitures, extra duties, restrictions, reductions in pay grade On 28 January 1966, he was honorably separated, with 2 years, 11 months and 15 days of creditable service and assigned to the Army Reserve. During the period 20 July-3 October 1971, he was AWOL and upon apprehension he was placed in confinement for the period 4-12...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018131
The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to show he was honorably discharged due to medical conditions. He had completed 2 years, 4 months, and 19 days of active service that was characterized as under other than honorable conditions. In view of the above, there is an insufficient basis upon which to upgrade his discharge to an honorable discharge or a general discharge or to correct his record to show he was discharged for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709252C070209
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. The Board considered the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000815
The applicant states: * he experienced mental health issues while serving on active duty which led to an attempted heroin overdose * he received weekly counseling for depression and substance abuse via the Sunshine Program at Fort Riley, KS * during this time he was awaiting court-martial for charges of forgery and strong-armed robbery * he was sentenced to 6 months of hard labor, reduction in rank/grade to private/E-1, forfeiture of pay, and he was later reassigned to the retraining brigade...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709252
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. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That...