Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
Ms. Joann Langston | Chairperson | |
Mr. Mark D. Manning | Member | |
Mr. Jose A. Martinez | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, disability retirement or separation. He states he had a "mental condition and should have been medically discharged." He submits no evidence in support of his request.
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 was inducted and entered active duty on 8 November 1962. In April 1963, following completion of training, he was assigned to Fort Devens, Massachusetts. In August 1963, while performing temporary duty (TDY) at Fort Drum, New York, the applicant departed AWOL (absent without leave). He surrendered to military authorities in California on 12 August 1963. He was attached to Presidio of San Francisco awaiting disposition. He was convicted by a summary court-martial and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 1 month.
A psychiatric evaluation, conducted on 30 September 1963, found the applicant suffered from a "basic character behavior disorder of lifelong duration…." The evaluating psychiatrist rendered a diagnosis of "passive-dependent type, chronic, moderate, as manifested by helplessness, indecisiveness, a tendency to cling to others…" which existed prior to his entry on active duty. He recommended the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability. The evaluating physician also concluded that the applicant had "no mental or physical disease or defect which warrants consideration by a physical evaluation board or other disposition through medical channels."
On 7 October 1963 the applicant's unit commander initiated action to administratively separate him for unsuitability. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation and waived his attendant rights. The recommendation was approved. On 15 October 1963 the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions.
Army Regulation 635-209, in effect at the time, set forth the policy and prescribed procedures for eliminating enlisted personnel for unsuitability. Action was to be taken to discharge an individual for unsuitability when, in the commander's opinion, it was clearly established that: the individual was unlikely to develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a satisfactory soldier or the individual's psychiatric or physical condition was such as to not warrant discharge for disability. Unsuitability included inaptitude, character and behavior disorders, disorders of intelligence and transient personality disorders due to acute or special stress, apathy, defective attitude, and inability to expend effort constructively, enuresis, chronic alcoholism, and homosexuality. Evaluation by a medical officer was required and, when psychiatric indications were involved, the medical officer must have been a psychiatrist, if one was available. A general or honorable discharge was considered appropriate.
Army Regulation 635-40 states that disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to soldiers whose service is interrupted and they can no longer continue to reasonable perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service. When a solider is being processed for separation or retirement for reasons other than physical disability, continued performance of assigned duty commensurate with his or her rank or grade until the soldier is scheduled for separation or retirement, creates a presumption that the soldier is fit. The presumption of fitness may be overcome if the evidence establishes that the soldier was, in fact, physically unable to perform adequately the duties of his or her office, grade, rank or rating for a period of time because of disability. There must be a causative relationship between the less than adequate duty performance and the unfitting medical condition or conditions. The presumption of fitness may also be overcome by an acute, grave illness or injury or other significant deterioration of the soldier’s physical condition occurred immediately prior to, or coincident with processing for separation or retirement for reasons other than physical disability and which rendered the soldier unfit for further duty.
Army Regulation 40-501 states that personality disorders may render an individual administratively unfit rather than unfit because of physical disability. Interference with performance of effective duty in association with these conditions will be dealt with through appropriate administrative channels. It also states that transient, situational maladjustment due to acute or special stress do not render an individual unfit because of physical disability, but rather may be the basis for administrative separation if recurrent and causing interference with military duty.
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.
There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, which indicates that he suffered from any medically disqualifying condition which would have warranted separation or retirement by reason of disability.
DISCUSSION: The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered on 15 October 1963, the date the applicant was discharged and authenticated his separation document. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on
15 October 1966.
The application is dated 10 July 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
__JL____ ___MDM_ __JAM _ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
CASE ID | AR2001060269 |
SUFFIX | |
RECON | YYYYMMDD |
DATE BOARDED | 20011011 |
TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
DISCHARGE REASON | |
BOARD DECISION | DENY |
REVIEW AUTHORITY | 142.00 |
ISSUES 1. | |
2. | |
3. | |
4. | |
5. | |
6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005529
The applicant states that he was placed on psychiatric evaluation in December 1963, and a short time later he was discharged. However, no evidence of neurosis or psychosis was found, he was diagnosed with a character and behavior disorder, and he was psychiatrically cleared for an administrative separation. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to show that the applicant was improperly separated administratively under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 rather than medically...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080015995
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 December 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080015995 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-209 set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unsuitability. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to show that the applicant was improperly separated administratively under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 rather than medically under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9508100C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be corrected to an honorable medical disability retirement. That recommendation was approved and the applicant was issued a General Discharge Certificate for unsuitability on 15 March 1965 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209. The application is dated 16 March 1995 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010212C070208
Leonard Hassell | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests that his discharge be upgraded to fully honorable by reason of physical disability. Action was to be taken to discharge an individual for unsuitability when, in the commander's opinion, it was clearly established that: the individual was unlikely to develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199707333C070209
The applicant requests the upgrade of his discharge from general to honorable by reason of medical disability. It required retroactive application of revised policies, attitudes and changes in reviewing applications for upgrade of discharges based on personality disorders. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was separated from the service with an honorable discharge on 23 December 1963.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199707333
The applicant requests the upgrade of his discharge from general to honorable by reason of medical disability.3. Accordingly, applicant’s administrative separation on 23 December 1963 with a general discharge was accomplished in accordance with regulations in effect at the time. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was separated from the service with an honorable discharge on 23 December 1963.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090771C070212
The applicant was discharged on 27 August 1963. However, the evidence of record shows that prior to the applicant's discharge in August 1963, competent medical authority determined that he was then medically qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111111. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066899C070402
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 2 December 1963, he was discharged under honorable conditions, by reason of unsuitability, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209. The applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008624
The applicant requests that his general discharge be changed to an honorable discharge due to disability. He was separated with a general discharge on 23 November 1959 under the provisions of Army Regulation 636-209 (Personnel Separations- Discharge - Unsuitability) due to a character and behavior disorder. _______ _ x_______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008697
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. There is no evidence of record, and the applicant provides insufficient evidence, that shows the applicant was found mentally (or physically) unfit for retention in military service during the period of service under review. _______ _ X_______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of...