| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Eric N. Andersen | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his records be corrected to restore his rank and pay grade to specialist four/E-4 (SP4/E-4) and that he be issued a new separation document reflecting this change.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that family problems impaired his ability to serve in the Army. He states that it is not right for him to continue to suffer from the mistakes he made such a long time ago. He further states that he is not asking for money, only to correct his records to reflect his rank was SP4.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 29 April 1966, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years and on 22 July 1968, he reenlisted for an additional 3 years. He was trained and served in military occupation specialty (MOS) 63C (Track Vehicle Mechanic) and his awards included the Vietnam Service Medal, Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with 60 Device, and National Defense Service Medal.
The applicant’s record confirms the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was SP4/E-4. His disciplinary history includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on two separate occasions. On 2 October 1968, he accepted NJP for failure to report to reveille. On 6 December 1968, he again accepted NJP for disobeying a lawful order from a non-commissioned officer, disobeying a lawful order from a warrant officer, and for failure to go to his appointed placed of duty. His punishment for these offenses included a suspended reduction to the rank and pay grade of private/E-1 which was later vacated for cause.
On 23 January 1969, the applicant was notified by his commander that separation action was being initiated to eliminate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability. The reason cited for the action was that the applicant suffered from a character and behavior disorder that steamed from the constant burden of caring for his family, which prevented him from adjusting to military life. He acknowledged receipt of the separation action and after being advised of his rights, he waived his right to consulting counsel and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 17 February 1969, the separation action was approved by the appropriate authority who directed the applicant receive an honorable discharge. On
24 February 1969, he was discharged accordingly, in the rank and pay grade of private/E-1, after having served a total of 2 years, 9 months, and 26 days of active military service.
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel who are found unfit or unsuitable for further military service. Individuals separated by reason of unsuitability were furnished an honorable or general discharge as warranted by the military record.
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 notes the applicant’s contention that his misconduct that resulted in his acceptance of NJP and his reduction was caused by his family problems and that he should not suffer from the stigma of the reduction action for a mistake he made so long ago. However, the Board finds these factors are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.
2. The evidence of record shows that the commander imposing the NJP that resulted in the applicant’s reduction took into account his family problems and that this factor resulted in the commander initially suspending the reduction portion of the punishment imposed. However, even after this act of leniency, the applicant committed another act of misconduct which resulted in the suspended reduction being vacated and in his reduction in rank. Therefore, the Board finds the his family situation was not sufficiently mitigating to excuse the misconduct that resulted in his reduction.
3. Further, the record shows that the applicant was separated based on a character and behavior disorder with an honorable discharge which was primarily based on his failure to cope with his family problems. In the opinion of the Board, he received an honorable discharge as a result of the chain of command taking into account his family problems and viewing this factor as mitigating in the discharge process. The Board finds this leniency was appropriate based on his family situation but that this same factor provides an insufficient basis to reinstate his rank.
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___ __ENA__ __TEO__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001059662 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/09/27 |
| 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. | 106.0010 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065355C070421
The psychiatrist finally diagnosed the applicant with a sociopathic personality and recommended that he be separated from the military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. The separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability, and further directed that the applicant receive a GD. This document further verifies that the authority for his discharge was Army Regulation 635-212 and he was assigned a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130005665
On 20 May 1970, the applicant's immediate commander recommended the applicant's separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unsuitability. The applicant was accordingly discharged on 25 May 1970. The evidence of record shows the applicant's quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004102914C070208
The appropriate authority, the Division Artillery Commander, a Colonel, approved the recommendation for the applicant's separation and waived further counseling and rehabilitation. There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. The applicant was diagnosed by a trained psychiatrist and was found to have a borderline character disorder.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018018
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD); his rank be changed from private first class (PFC)/E-3 to specialist four (SP4)/E-4; and to have his record show he was seriously wounded. On 21 December 1970, the applicants unit commander advised the applicant that he was recommending him for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations Discharge Unfitness and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070002999C071029
The applicant's Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) is void of any medical treatment records that show the applicant was ever treated for stab wounds or injuries suffered from a beating while serving on active duty, or that he suffered from a disabling physical or mental medical condition that would have supported his separation processing through medical channels. A GD or HD could be issued to members separating under unsuitability provisions of the regulation, as warranted based on...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076702C070215
He also claims that the recurrent memories from the war were more than he could handle, and he was on strong pain medication for frequent headaches. On 5 October 1973, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed the applicant’s case and after determining that his discharge was proper and equitable, it denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020436
His military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army in the rank/grade of private (PV1)/E-1 on 5 April 1968, for 3 years. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), then in effect, provided that an honorable discharge was a separation with honor. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provided that a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006603
His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged, on 5 August 1969, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability due to character and behavior disorders, assigned the separation program number (SPN) code "264," and a reentry (RE) code of "RE-3B." Unfortunately, his record is void of any medical records, and the applicant has not provided any official documents, recording an incident of sexual assault while he was assigned to Fort Ord, CA; however, his records do contain two...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000386C070206
The applicant requested consideration by a board of officers and to personally appear before that board. The board recommended the applicant be discharged from the service due to unfitness with issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021730
The psychiatrist recommended the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability. Given the circumstances in this case, the applicant's discharge was inequitable for the following reasons: * he served 4 years, 1 month, and 4 days of creditable service * he served in Vietnam for 1 year, 8 months, and 27 days * he was twice wounded and twice cited for meritorious service * he was promoted to SSG/E-6 in three short years * from 30 November 1966 to 7 May...