| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be granted disability retirement or separation and that his service be characterized as honorable. He states, in effect, that he suffered from “organic brain syndrome” while in the military and contends that his under other than honorable conditions discharge was unjust. He notes that his discharge is preventing him from obtaining “necessary treatment” for his “mental condition” from the VA. In support of his request he submits extracts from his service medical records.
PURPOSE: To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He entered active duty on 21 July 1980. In April 1981 the applicant was punished under Article 15 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) for assault, failing to go to his appointed place of duty and disobeying an order.
In February 1982 the applicant’s records were “flagged” (suspension of favorable personnel actions) because the applicant was pending court-martial action. There is no indication in available record regarding the basis for the pending court-martial.
Extracts from the applicant’s service medical records indicate that he was referred to radiology for an “C-T head scan” in April 1982. The basis for the referral was “organic brain syndrome, possible progressive” after the applicant complained of recent increased agitation and bizarre behavior. His C-T head scan was normal and an EEG was non-specific. The evaluating physician recommended the applicant be returned to the mental health clinic and indicated he was doubtful that the applicant had a “seizure disorder” but believed his primary problems may have been psychiatric.
On 17 June 1982 the applicant was discharged from active duty under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. Documents associated with his administrative separation processing were not in records available to the Board.
In 1986 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s petition to upgrade his under other than honorable conditions discharge. The ADRB noted that there was nothing “in the applicant’s file, nor has the applicant submitted any evidence to the Board, that a neurological or a personality disorder mitigated the offenses which led to his being separated.”
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
Army Regulation 635-40, which establishes the policies and procedure for the separation or retirement of soldier’s by reason of physical disability states that soldier may not be referred for, or continue, physical disability processing when action has been started under any regulatory provision which authorizes a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions unless the general court-martial convening authority determines that the disability is the cause, or a substantial contributing cause, of the misconduct that might result in a discharge under other than honorable conditions.
Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. Failure to file within 3 years may be excused by a correction board if it finds it would be in the interest of justice to do so.
In absence of evidence to the contrary the Board presumes that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable laws and regulation. Additionally, the Board notes that there is no evidence, nor has the applicant provided any, which confirms that he had any medical condition which would warrant referral for disability processing. The Board also notes that the applicant has not presented any convincing evidence that he had any medical condition that would serve to mitigate the conduct that resulted in court-martial charges and ultimately to his administrative separation.
DISCUSSION: The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered on 17 June 1982, the date the applicant was discharged. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 17 June 1985.
The application is dated 3 June 2001 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 apply within the time allotted.
DETERMINATION: The subject application was not submitted within the time required. 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 relief requested or to excuse the failure to file within the time prescribed by law. Prior to reaching this determination the Board looked at the applicant's entire file. It was only after all aspects of his case had been considered and it had been concluded that there was no basis to recommend a correction of his record that the Board considered the statute of limitations. Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it would have recommended relief in spite of the applicant's failure to submit his application within the three-year time limit.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__JNS __ ___LE___ __REB__ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2001059042 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010925 |
| 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. | 142.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Wed Feb 14 13_34_15 CST 2001
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL. He noted that He The Board specifically noted In its review of your application the Board conducted a thorough review of both service and medical records, and the post-service medical records you provided. The Board also could not ignore the multiple notations With regard to your psychiatrist’s opinion that you suffered from PTSD, a paranoid personality disorder and a possible organic brain syndrome, the Board noted that like the other...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Wed Feb 14 14_01_05 CST 2001
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL. He noted that He The Board specifically noted In its review of your application the Board conducted a thorough review of both service and medical records, and the post-service medical records you provided. The Board also could not ignore the multiple notations With regard to your psychiatrist’s opinion that you suffered from PTSD, a paranoid personality disorder and a possible organic brain syndrome, the Board noted that like the other...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | AR20060014724C071029
A review of the available records fails 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. However, the evidence of record shows that he unlawfully discharged his rifle and damaged Government property, and that upon being notified of the charges pending against him, he submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. There is no...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017558
The applicant requests the records of his son, a former service member (FSM), be corrected as follows: * Upgrade his discharge from general to honorable with the appropriate codes * Promote him to sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 * Medically retire him by reason of disability with entitlements to all benefits * Restoration of his active duty pay from the date of discharge * Reimbursement of medical expenses occurred since 2006 after having been diagnosed with Glioma (right frontal lobe,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011095
On 15 August 1983, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be issued a UOTHC discharge certificate. He had completed a total of 1 year, 3 months, and 9 days of creditable active military service and had accrued a total of 165 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022530
(No medical records provided to substantiate this statement) 12 December 2006 He tested positive for marijuana. The fact that the applicant suffered from mental health issues is not in question; however the medical treatment timeline and partial medical records provided by his counsel are insufficient evidence to show that the Army failed to provide timely and adequate medical treatment to the applicant or to show that he was not properly diagnosed. The applicant and his counsel further...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070000893
The applicant requests correction of his records to show that he was permanently retired from the military by reason of physical disability. Title 10, United States Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years service and a disability rated at less than 30 percent. The medical evidence of record supports the determination that the applicant's unfitting condition was properly diagnosed and rated at the time of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065949C070421
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant’s service medical records are not available. On 29 April 1983, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge under other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct – pattern of misconduct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001714
The applicant provides: * timeline of events * four letters, dated 5 October 2013, 22 November 2013, 16 December 2013, and 15 January 2014 * memorandum, dated 10 January 2014 * 27 pages of various personnel records including orders, memoranda, his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), and National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) * 74 pages of military medical records * 12 pages of civilian medical records CONSIDERATION OF...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050005161C070206
He was diagnosed with two medical conditions, neither of which was a mental disorder. There is no evidence of record and the applicant provides none to show he was unfit due to a mental disorder at the time he was evaluated by the MEB or at the time he was removed from the TDRL. Indeed, there is no evidence of record and the applicant provides none to show he had a mental disorder at the time he was evaluated by the MEB or at the time he was removed from the TDRL.