| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Melinda M. Darby | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that her rank be restored to E-5 and that she be reimbursed $900 for a fine imposed following her special court-martial.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that due to a misdiagnosis at the time of her discharge, she requests reinstatement of her rank to E-5 and reimbursement of a $900 fine. In support of her application, she submits a copy of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, dated 22 February 2000.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted on 29 January 1970 for a period of 3 years. She served as an occupational specialist, extended her enlistment for 2 years and was honorably discharged on 28 January 1975. She reenlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 29 January 1975 for a period of 1 year. The applicant entered active duty again on 27 February 1976 for a period of 4 years.
On 2 August 1977, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 18 April 1977 to 11 July 1977. She was sentenced to be reduced to E-1, to forfeit $100 pay per month for 3 months and to be confined at hard labor for 3 months. On 7 August 1977, the convening authority approved the sentence but suspended the confinement at hard labor for 6 months.
On 3 April 1978, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 7 March 1978 to 20 March 1978. Her punishment consisted of 14 days of extra duty and forfeiture of $50.
The decision by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, dated 22 February 2000, in the applicant’s case indicates that her service medical records were available for review. Her service medical records reveal that she underwent a psychiatric evaluation in May 1978 and was diagnosed with an immature personality with depressive features. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision also states the psychiatrist strongly recommended that the applicant be administratively separated.
On 22 May 1978, the applicant was notified of her pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsuitability due to a personality disorder.
The available records do not contain a medical examination or psychiatric evaluation.
On 24 May 1978, the applicant’s unit commander initiated action to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsuitability due to a personality disorder.
On 5 June 1978, after consulting with counsel, the applicant waived consideration of her case by a board of officers, representation by counsel and elected not to submit a statement on her own behalf.
On 14 June 1978, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant be issued an honorable discharge.
Accordingly, the applicant was honorably discharged on 22 June 1978 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, for unsuitability due to a personality disorder. She had served 6 years, 11 months and 21 days of total active service with 125 days lost due to AWOL.
There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant was promoted to E-5 following her special court-martial.
There is no evidence in the available records which shows a $900 fine was imposed upon the applicant.
In support of her claim, the applicant provided a copy of the decision by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, dated 22 February 2000, which granted service connection for major depression.
Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 provided for discharge due to unfitness and unsuitability. Specific categories for unsuitability included inaptitude, character and behavior disorders, apathy, alcoholism and homosexuality. The regulation also states that when separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as warranted by his/her 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 considered the applicant’s contention that she was misdiagnosed at the time of her discharge. However, medical evidence provided to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals shows that a psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant with an immature personality with depressive features in May 1978. Evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsuitability due to a personality disorder on 22 June 1978.
2. The Board noted that the decision by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals granted service connection for major depression on 22 February 2000. However, the rating action by the DVA does not necessarily demonstrate any error or injustice in the separation authority’s decision to separate the applicant from the Army.
3. The Board noted the applicant’s request that her rank be restored to E-5.
Evidence of record shows the applicant was reduced from E-5 to E-1 as the result of a special court-martial conviction for being AWOL. There is no evidence that the applicant’s depression was the proximate cause of her AWOL. There is also no evidence which shows the applicant was promoted to E-5 following her special court-martial or prior to her separation on 22 June 1978.
4. The Board also noted the applicant’s request that she be reimbursed $900 for a fine imposed following her special court-martial. However, there is no evidence of record available to the Board, and the applicant has provided no evidence, which shows that she was fined $900. Evidence of record shows that the applicant received a forfeiture of $100 pay per month for 3 months from her special court-martial and that she received a $50 forfeiture of pay from her nonjudicial punishment.
5. Based on the foregoing, there is no basis to restore rank or monies forfeited.
6. 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.
7. 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
INW____ MMD____ JTM_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001063048 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020416 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 102.0200 |
| 2. | 128.1400 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067588C070402
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions (a general discharge) on 19 August 1969 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability due to character and behavior disorders. On 6 January 1971 and on 16 June 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s requests for a discharge upgrade to honorable. That the Department issue to her an Honorable Discharge Certificate, dated 19 August 1969, in lieu of the general discharge of the same...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | AR20140007622
When separation for unsuitability was warranted, an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record. The evidence does not support her request for correction of her record to show she was discharged due to the medical condition of depression. While all requirements of law and regulations, then in effect, were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process, the Brotzman...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007229
The applicant states that her discharge was not based on any misconduct on her part but rather on her own request for separation. On 20 July 1978, the applicants immediate commander notified the applicant of his (the commander's) intent to initiate action to affect her (the applicant's) discharge from the Army under the provisions of chapter 13-4c of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) by reason of unsuitability. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100000090
He also waived his right for consideration of his case by a board of officers, personal appearance before a board of officers and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was separated under the unsuitability (character and behavior disorder) provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing he received an honorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021239
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. However, his psychiatric examination indicated a borderline condition and that at the time, there was no evidence which indicated psychoses sufficient to warrant medical disposition under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01726
On 7 and 23 June 1978, she failed to report for duty, for which she received two failures to repair letters. Upon the recommendation of the Air Force Personnel Board, on 24 June 1981, the Secretary of the Air Force approved her request to upgrade her RE code to RE-1. Although the applicant contends she should have been medically discharged, she provides no documentary evidence to support that she was unfit for continued military service at the time of her discharge from the Air Force.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005000
The applicant states she enlisted in the Army in 1970 and was discharged in September 1971. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: * issuing the applicant a new DD Form 214 reflecting her character of service as honorable * issuing the applicant an Honorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003414C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that her general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD); that her rank be changed from private/E-1 (PV1) to private/E-2 (PV2) and that the Separation Program Number (SPN) 264 be deleted from her separation document (DD Form 214). The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant confirms that she was separated with a GD on 7 October 1970. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Codes), in effect at...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003138
On 22 September 1969, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unfitness and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He was discharged for unsuitability due to this character and behavior disorder with an under conditions other than honorable discharge. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. issuing the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008637
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 February 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060008637 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Under current regulations, members separated by reason of personality disorder (character and behavior disorder) must be issued an honorable discharge unless they have been convicted by a general court-martial or more...