| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Christopher J. Prosser | Member | |
| Ms. Linda D. Simmons | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the narrative reason for his discharge and the rank listed on his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form214) be changed.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his service in the Army was free of any disciplinary actions and that his correct rank at the time of his separation from the Army was private (E-2). He states that his discharge was improper and does not exist in Army Regulations. He further claims that he was denied legal counsel at the time of his discharge, which was due to his medical condition.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant entered the Army on 4 May 1982. The highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private (E-1). He completed 10 months and
6 days of creditable active service prior to being discharged on 9 March 1983.
He completed basic combat training, advanced individual training, and was subsequently assigned to Fort Carson, Colorado. His record shows that he was denied a promotion to the rank of on private (E-2) by his unit commander on
20 October 1982 based on his poor duty performance.
On 20 December 1982, the Chief, Department of Psychiatry, at the medical treatment facility diagnosed the applicant as suffering from a mixed personality disorder with passive dependent and inadequate features.
On 17 February 1983, the applicant was notified by his unit commander that separation action was being initiated against him, under the provisions of chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of personality disorder. The commander cited the basis for his action was the results of the mental status evaluation and diagnosis rendered by the Chief, Department of Psychiatry. The applicant acknowledged that he was notified of the separation action and completed a rights option statement in which he waived his right to consult counsel and elected not to submit a rebuttal statement in his own behalf.
The separation action was approved by the appropriate authority, who directed the applicant receive an honorable discharge, and he was separated accordingly on 9 March 1983. The authority for his discharge was cited as paragraph 5-13, Army Regulation, 635-200 and the narrative reason for separation was personality disorder.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-13 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel because of personality disorder. It also provides that a soldier may be separated for a personality disorder that interferes with assignment to or performance of duty, when so diagnosed by a physician trained in psychiatry or psychiatric diagnosis.
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 contention that his rank should be corrected to private (E-2) lacks merit. The evidence of record confirms the highest rank he attained while on active duty was private (E-1) and that he was officially denied a promotion to the rank of private (E-2) by his unit commander on 20 October 1982. Therefore, the rank of private (E-1) shown on his DD Form 214, dated 9 March 1983, is correct.
2. The applicant’s contention that he was denied legal counsel during the separation process is also without merit. The Board notes that he acknowledged that he was notified that a separation action was initiated against him and of the basis for that action. In addition, he was afforded the opportunity to consult legal counsel at the time but declined to do so.
3. Therefore, the Board finds that his administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that jeopardized his rights. Further, the Board concludes that the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
4. 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.
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
__RVO__ __CJP___ __LDS___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001057830 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/08/30 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD,) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19830309 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Personality Disorder |
| BOARD DECISION | (NC) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 90.07 | 42.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016269
On 24 October 1983, he was notified by his immediate commander that discharge action was being initiated against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 5 by reason of a personality disorder diagnosed by a competent medical authority. The applicant contends his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show his grade as E-5, dates of service from 1981 to 1984, MOS as 91B2O, Parachutist Badge, and reason for separation as something...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070011530C080213
On 28 June 1984, the applicant was discharged, with a general under honorable conditions characterization of service, in pay grade E-3, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, personality disorder. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-5b at the time, stated no member would be awarded a characterization of service of under honorable conditions under this section unless the member was notified of the specific factors in his or her service record that warranted such a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012768C071029
The applicant requests, in effect, that the narrative reason for his discharge be changed from Unsuitability (Personality Disorder) to Disability (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and that he be granted a medical retirement. Chapter 13, in effect at the time, provided the authority to separate members for unsuitability (personality disorder). Thus, there is insufficient evidence showing he suffered from a disabling mental condition at the time of his discharge that would have...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001066C070206
The application submitted in this case is dated 18 January 2005. On 29 July 1982, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200, due to alcohol rehabilitation failure, with a characterization of service of under honorable conditions. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001066C070206
On 29 July 1982, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200, due to alcohol rehabilitation failure, with a characterization of service of under honorable conditions. The applicant submitted medical documentation to show that he was in fact assaulted and that he received medical treatment for his injuries received. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082969C070215
The applicant’s military records show that prior to the period of service under review the applicant served honorable in the Regular Army (RA) from 28 December 1981 through 26 March 1982 when he was an Army National Guard (ARNG) member assigned to active duty for training. would be appropriate to: delete from his military personnel and medical records, if available, any and all references to the positive urinalysis of 23 September 1983; void the discharge action based upon that positive...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020336
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. Since the applicant was not in an entry-level status at the time of his discharge and he had no court-martial convictions, it would be appropriate to correct his records to show he was honorably discharged on 9 March 1983 and to issue him an Honorable Discharge Certificate. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007812
The applicant also understood that if his request for discharge was accepted, he may be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. There is no evidence in the applicant's military records, and the applicant failed to provide any evidence which shows that he suffered from bipolar disorder at any time during his military service. The applicant's record of service shows that he accepted NJP under Article 15 of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010999C071029
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 applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within the ADRB's 15-year statute of limitations. Further, the applicant's misconduct clearly diminished his overall record of service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009131C070205
Jeffrey Redmann | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant was discharged on 12 January 1983 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. The applicant’s service record shows he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 on five separate occasions and a bar to reenlistment.