Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060588C070421
Original file (2001060588C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 5 March 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001060588

         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.
Mr. Carl W. S. Chun Director
Ms. P. A. Castle Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:
Mr. Fred N. Eichorn Chairperson
Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III Member
Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. 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 to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
         The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.
         The Board considered the following evidence:
         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
          Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS

 : In effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. That the report of discharge (DD Form 214) be corrected by deleting the words, “failure to meet acceptable standards for continued military service.” He requests that the Army acknowledge and compensate him for an eye injury he received and he requests the award of the war ribbon given to soldiers when the Vietnam War ended.

 APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he was a perfect soldier. He received no article 15’s or disciplinary actions during his term of service and for these reasons his discharge should be upgraded to honorable and the narrative reason for discharge on his DD Form 214 should be removed. That upon the first week of arrival to his first assignment he was viciously attacked. As a result of that beating his eye was injured and after discharge it progressively worsened to the point of required surgery. He states that he did not receive a separation physical and this is the reason the Army missed the injury. He also states that when the Vietnam War ended he did not receive his war ribbon.

 EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:

He enlisted in the Army on 23 October 1974, for 3 years. He started his initial training at Fort Knox, Kentucky, however, he encountered lung problems so he was reassigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma for advanced individual training as a field wireman. He was advanced to the grade of E-2 on 18 December 1974.

The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s disciplinary actions are not present in the available records. However, on 9 June 1975, the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to separate him from the military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37. The commander specifically cited the applicant’s inability to adapt emotionally, his poor attitude, his failure to demonstrate promotion potential, two episodes of AWOL, receipt of six different formal counseling sessions, and receipt of three Articles 15. The commander recommended that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

The applicant indicated in his statement of acknowledgment that he voluntarily accepted this discharge and waived making any statement.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 26 June 1975, and directed he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 26 June 1975. He completed 8 months and 4 days of active Federal service. He had no foreign service.

There is no evidence in the available records to substantiate the applicant’s claim that he was viciously attacked nor do any of the records available indicate the applicant was treated for wounds incurred in an altercation.

The applicant submitted a copy of a DD Form 214 that states as reason for discharge, “failure to meet acceptable standards for continued military service.” However, the DD Form 214 in the applicant’s military record states as reason for discharge, “paragraph 5-37, Army Regulation 635-200.”

The applicant’s request for a war ribbon is assumed to be a request for the National Defense Service Medal (NDSM) which was awarded to service members whose service was honorable prior to 14 August 1974.

On 13 June 2001 the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge. Because his application was not submitted within that board’s 15-year stature of limitations, it was forwarded to this Board for consideration.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 5 of that regulation provided authorization for separation for the convenience of the government. Paragraph 5-37, in pertinent part, provided for a discharge based upon inability to adapt, poor attitude, and failure to demonstrate promotion potential. A general discharge under honorable conditions was normally issued.

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 reasonably 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.

Army Regulation 672-5-1, then in effect, provided, in pertinent part, that the National Defense Service Medal (NDSM) was issued to soldiers who served honorably on active duty between 1 January 1961 and 14 August 1974.

 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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2. His DD Form 214 accurately reflects the appropriate separation authority and narrative reason for separation in item number 9c.

 3. The applicant was not eligible for the NDSM during the period of his enlistment. Accordingly, there is no basis to award it to him at this time.
4. The applicant’s contentions regarding an attack that subsequently caused him to later have an operation on his eye has been noted by the Board but are not supported either by evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.

5. 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.

6. 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

___ fe ___ ___ tbr ___ ___ dh ___ DENY APPLICATION
                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records
INDEX
CASE ID AR2001060588
SUFFIX
RECON YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED 2002/03/05
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 189 110.0000
2. 191 110.0200
3. 46 107.0000
4. 257 122.0100
5.
6.



Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016693

    Original file (20080016693.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his honorable discharge be changed to a medical discharge. Chapter 7 (Physical Profiling) of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) provides that the basic purpose of the physical profile serial system is to provide an index to the overall functional capacity of an individual and is used to assist the unit commander and personnel officer in their determination of what duty assignments the individual is capable of performing, and if reclassification...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001690

    Original file (20120001690.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant contends his undesirable discharge should be changed to a medical discharge because he was unable to perform his duties due to a back injury he incurred in Germany in 1975. The evidence of record shows he was found to be physically qualified for separation on 1 October 1976 with a physical profile of 113121. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to show a medical discharge was warranted.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002442C070206

    Original file (20050002442C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge by reason of physical disability. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. Notwithstanding that there is no evidence in the available records to show that he was deemed unfit for further military service by reason of physical disability...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012542

    Original file (20090012542.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He also requests a medical discharge and a mental illness discharge. The military doctor indicated that the applicant was not fit for military service and recommended his discharge. The applicant contends that his general, under honorable conditions discharge should be upgraded; that he should receive a medical discharge and a mental illness discharge; and that there are many unanswered questions regarding his discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070005902

    Original file (20070005902.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His condition, he states, has not changed since he was discharged from military service. Individuals discharge under the expeditious discharge program could be awarded an honorable or general discharge certificate, as appropriate. Absent any evidence that the applicant suffered from a disabling mental condition at the time of his discharge, his contentions alone are not sufficiently mitigating to support an upgrade of his discharge and a change to the narrative reason for his separation.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080004001

    Original file (20080004001.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request to expunge a DA Form 1059 (Academic Report) for the period 24 January through 30 June 1972 and an Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 11 October 1968 through 28 February 1969 from his records; and that the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), dated 10 October 1973, be corrected to show that he was found to be unfit for duty and that he was retired due to disability effective 3 December 1973 with all retroactive benefits and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019801

    Original file (20140019801.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests the basis for his general under honorable conditions discharge be changed from Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-37 (Discharge for Failure to Demonstrate Promotion Potential), to a discharge for being unfit due to a medical condition under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation). The authority and reason for discharge is shown as paragraph 5-37, Army...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002723

    Original file (20090002723.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant states he was young and influenced by the men returning from Vietnam. The commander’s request for discharge was forwarded through the chain of command to the approving authority.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008753C071108

    Original file (20060008753C071108.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The memorandum, dated 14 September 1970, subject Report of Psychiatric Evaluation from the applicant’s service medical records, submitted by the applicant, show that he had been referred by the command for evaluation in connection with a special medical inquiry. The regulation essentially requires that the service member must have voluntarily enlisted; must be in basic, advanced individual training, on the job, or service school training prior to award of a military occupational specialty...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110006127

    Original file (20110006127.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 30 September 1975, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the service with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 5-37, and the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP). There is no evidence in the available records to show he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. The applicant's...