| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Eric N. Andersen | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge for unsuitability be corrected to a medical discharge. In addition, he requests that his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States, Report of Transfer or Discharge, be corrected to show that he was in pay grade E-2 at the time of his separation, and to show that he was awarded the Marksmenship Badge with Expert Rifle Bar.
APPLICANT STATES: While on active duty he contracted viral menengitus, rubella and neuroses. Those medical defects should have warranted a medical discharge.
In support of his application he submits a letter from a a physician who stated that he has provided treatment for the applicant for several medical conditions for which he initially was treated for in the Army. The physician opines that the applicant should be rated 100 percent disabled.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was inducted on 24 August 1966 and was awarded the military occupational specialty of cook and was advanced to pay grade E-2 on 28 October 1966.
On 8 February 1967 the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for being AWOL from 4 to 8 February 1967. His punishment consisted of 14 days of restriction and 14 days of extra duty.
On 2 June 1967 the applicant pled and was found guilty by a Special Court-Martial for being AWOL from 6 March to 6 May 1967. His sentence consisted of a reduction from pay grade E-2 to E-1, 60 days restriction, and a forfeiture of $64.00 a month for 3 months. However, the convening authority of that court-martial determined that when the applicant’s defense counsel stated that the applicant may have been mentally ill and not responsible for his actions, the defense counsel raised a possible defense which rendered acceptance of the guilty plea improper. The convening authority continued that the proper procedure would have been for the court, on its own motion, to change the plea from guilty to not guilty. Based on that assessment, the convening authority set aside the guilty finding by the court-martial and authorized a re-hearing.
On 17 August 1967 the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending that he be discharged due to unsuitability and of his rights in conjunction with that recommendation. That applicant waived all his rights.
On 15 August 1967 the applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation to discharge the applicant. That recommendation was approved by the appropriate authority and the applicant was issued a General Discharge Certificate on 23 October 1967. He had 1 year and 6 days of creditable service and 53 days of lost time.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. There is no evidence to show that the applicant qualified with a rifle. As such, the Board finds no reason to grant that portion of his request.
2. His request for a medical discharge cannot be properly addressed without the applicant’s medical records. Since his medical records were not contained in his Military Personnel Records Jacket, the Board has no alternative but to deny that portion of his request also.
3. The applicant’s request for his DD Form 214 to reflect that he was in pay grade E-2 is with merit. While the applicant’s court-martial reduced him to pay grade E-1, the findings and recommendation of that court were set aside. As such, the applicant was never reduced in grade. However, correcting the applicant’s DD Form 214 is an administrative matter and does not require the authority of the Board.
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
___rvo___ ___teo __ ___ena__ DENY APPLICATION
Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency
| CASE ID | AR2001056938 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010927 |
| 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. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100028265
On 30 January 1967, the applicant's immediate commander initiated a Certificate of Unsuitability for Enlistment/Reenlistment against the applicant. The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably perform his or her duties and assign an appropriate disability rating before he or she can be medically retired or separated. The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably perform his or her duties and assign an appropriate disability rating...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000874
There is no evidence in the available records to show he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations. Thereafter, the type of discharge and the character of service were to be determined solely by the individual's military record during the current enlistment. A second memorandum, dated 8 February 1978, better known as the "Nelson Memorandum," expanded the review policy and specified that the presence of a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110012643
The applicant states the Army clearly violated Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) and the UCMJ by requiring a bad conduct discharge (BCD) hearing in order to issue a certificate of unsuitability for enlistment/reenlistment [now known as a bar to reenlistment]. The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably perform his or her duties and assign an appropriate disability rating before he or she can be medically retired or separated. Additionally,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010675
On 8 November 1967, the convening authority approved only so much of the sentence as provided for a reduction to E-1, confinement at hard labor for 3 years, forfeiture of $25 pay per month for 3 years, and a dishonorable discharge. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018643
On 5 August 1968, the company commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action to effect his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability), paragraph 6a, for unfitness. The applicant's military personnel records contain his DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, Separation Program Number (SPN) 386 with service characterized as under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080019801
On 24 April 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an honorable discharge. An unrelated, earlier Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) considered the applicant's request for a medical discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003491
The applicant requests that his general discharge of 12 February 1968 be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions on 12 February 1968, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unsuitability due to a character and behavior disorder. There is no evidence to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017817
On 18 July 1967, the unit commander initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability due to character and behavior disorders. The evidence of record does not support the applicants contention that he was mentally ill when he was discharged. Since the applicants record of service included one nonjudicial punishment, two special courts-martial convictions, and 76 days of lost time, his record of service did not meet the standards...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085030C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He was sentenced to dismissal from the service. The applicant submitted a petition for a grant of review by the United States Court of Military Appeals and his request was denied.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004686
Article 90, on or about 6 January 1967, by lifting a weapon, a broken broom stick, against a Lieutenant Colonel C----y, a superior commissioned officer in the execution of his duties; c. Article 92, on or about 23 December 1966, by failing to obey a lawful order issued by a specialist four, who was then performing duties as a guard at the Fort Carson Post Stockade; and d. Article 85, on or about 28 December 1965, by being AWOL from his basic combat training unit with the intent to remain...