| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock | Analyst |
| Ms. Shirley L. Powell | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Stanley Kelley | Member | |
| Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests that the records of her husband, a former service member (FSM), now deceased, be corrected to upgrade his discharge to honorable or to show a medical (physical disability) discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That under current policy and procedures he would have received a discharge of no less than general. He had honest and faithful service prior to his medical condition [the onset of his medical ailments].
COUNSEL CONTENDS: That the FSM had 555 days of AWOL because of medical and family problems. He states that the applicant feels that no person should be brought to trial unless he possesses sufficient mental capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings against him and to conduct or cooperate intelligently in his defense. The FSM should have been placed under observation and examined, and an investigation conducted, if necessary. She believes that there was doubt concerning the applicant’s mental capacity to understand the actions during a court-martial proceeding. Counsel states that the FSM had frequent medical ailments as indicated on his 29 September 1967 report of medical history. The FSM should have been treated for his medical conditions.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's consideration of his case on 10 July 1991 in which the FSM requested that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable (AC91-06212).
The 7 February 1968 report of medical examination, conducted a little more than one month prior to the discharge of the FSM shows that the applicant was medically qualified for discharge with a physical profile serial of 1 1 1 1 1 1 . In the report of military history which he furnished for the examination, the FSM listed various ailments and conditions which he had, or had had, to include swollen or painful joints, mumps, whooping cough, frequent or severe headache, dizziness or fainting spells, shortness of breath, cramps in legs, painful or trick shoulder or elbow, trick or locked knee. He also indicated that he had or had had car, train, sea, or air sickness, and nervous trouble. He stated that his health was good. In a 29 September 1967 report of military history, the FSM listed ailments similar to those listed on the later report.
In addition to the information concerning the psychiatric evaluation in the 1991 case, the psychiatrist also stated that the FSM vowed to continue going AWOL since he had no motivation to adjust to the Army.
Title 10, United States Code, chapter 61, provides disability retirement or separation for a member who is physically unfit to perform the duties of his office, rank, grade or rating because of disability incurred while entitled to basic pay.
Army Regulation 40-501 provides that for an individual to be found unfit by reason of physical disability, he must be unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating.
Army Regulation 635-40, then in effect, establishes policies and prescribes procedures for the physical disability evaluation of soldiers for retention, retirement, or separation, and states, in pertinent part, that when a member is undergoing evaluation of a referral arising during separation processing for reasons other than physical disability, continued performance of duty creates a presumption of fit for duty. That regulation also states that no enlisted member may be referred for physical disability processing when the record indicates the basis for separation is unfitness.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Paragraph 14-12c states that soldiers are subject to separation for commission of a serious military or civil offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge would be authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the MCM. An absentee returned to military control from a status of absent without leave may be separated for commission of a serious offense. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged for misconduct.
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. Although the FSM did list several ailments and conditions that he had, or that he had had, he stated that his health was good. Qualified medical personnel determined that he was physically and mentally fit for discharge as reflected in his 1968 report of medical examination and psychiatric report. In addition, his continued performance of duty immediately prior to his discharge, raised a presumption of fitness which has not been overcome by evidence of any unfitting, acute, grave illness or injury concomitant with the separation of the FSM. The FSM did not have any medically unfitting disability which required physical disability processing. Furthermore, the FSM could not have been referred for disability processing because of the nature of his discharge proceedings. Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability separation (medical discharge). No medical evidence has been presented by the applicant to demonstrate an injustice in the medical treatment the FSM received in service.
2. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service. Notwithstanding the applicant’s contentions, the policy currently in effect concerning an administrative separation for misconduct, five periods of AWOL for a total of 555 days, would undoubtedly result in a discharge under other than honorable conditions – no different from that in 1968.
3. Neither the applicant nor counsel has submitted probative evidence or a convincing argument in support of her request.
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 that 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
__SLP __ __SK ___ __EJA___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001063067 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020319 |
| 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. | 110.00 |
| 2. | 108.00 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008837
The applicant states the FSM's discharge should be upgraded based on Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations Discharge Unfitness and Unsuitability). The applicant provides: * DD Form 214 * Birth certificate * Identification card * Certificate of Death * 3 letters, dated 3 September 2011, 22 March 2013, and 27 April 2013 * Special Orders (SO) Number 224, dated 24 September 1964 * SO Number 122, dated 21 May 1965 * SO Number 151, dated 24 June 1965 * SO Number 86, dated 10 May 1966 *...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110025249
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, his Standard Form (SF) 89 (Report of Medical History) and SF 88 (Report of Medical Examination) be corrected to show his "trick knee," other ailments, and his actual separation date in order for him to qualify for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits. The applicant provides: * self-authored statements * SF 89, dated 20 October 1967 * SF 86, dated 20 October 1967 * self-authored letter to the VA,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100030525
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 July 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100030525 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The FSM's DD Form 214 and permanent orders show he was discharged from the Regular Army on 7 October 1968 due to his own application for discharge by reason of physical disability that existed prior to his entry in the service. As such, a presumption of regularity must be applied, that his physical disability was not incurred or aggravated by or during his military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018507
BOARD DATE: 15 July 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130018507 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests correction of the records of his deceased father, a former service member (FSM), by: * upgrading the FSM's character of service to honorable * showing the FSM was discharged due to a medical condition * restoring the FSM's 255 days of lost time * crediting the FSM with a full 6 years of service * showing the FSM's pes planus (flat feet) condition was in the line of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009843
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The DD Form 214 issued to the FSM on 4 April 1973, the date of his discharge, confirms he was separated UOTHC under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. Records show the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on should have been discovered on 4 April 1973, the date of the FSM's discharge, and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9610823C070209
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military and medical records show: On 16 August 1965, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States. On 2 November 1994, almost 27 years after his separation from active duty, a VA Rating Decision awarded the applicant a service-connected disability rating of 100 percent, effective 23 February 1994, for glomerulonephritis with hypertension, requiring dialysis. The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003865C070206
DA Form 2166-4 (Enlisted Efficiency Report), dated 12 December 1973, shows the FSM was rated "excellent" for duty performance. Although the applicant contends that the FSM had many episodes of sickness and debilitating problems while he was on active duty, and service medical records show he was hospitalized and treated for anemia and pancreatitis while in the Army, the FSM was found qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111121 by competent medical authorities on 29...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012797
The VA, which has neither the authority nor the responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service, awards disability ratings to veterans for conditions that it determines were incurred during military service and subsequently affects the individual's employability. The Army's determination of a Soldier's physical fitness or unfitness is a factual finding based on the individual's ability to perform the duties of his or her grade, rank, or rating. The applicants...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130006657
A DD Form 398 (Statement of Personal History) completed in conjunction with his induction shows his SSN as "XXX-XX-6344." On 19 September 1967, the applicant's commanding officer recommended his elimination from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness due to his severe record of AWOL and misconduct. _______ _ X ______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074935C070403
• Probative value of MEB, physical examinations and reports in a disability determination by the PEB and the ABCMR. The MOC, on page 6, notes that the ARBA medical advisor provided an AO; however, neither the AO nor the ABCMR MOC, discuss the overall effect of all, or some, of his ailments on his ability to perform his duties; pain as an unfitting condition; his VA and Army medical records; the postretirement report of examinations in the appeal that conflicted with Army MEB diagnoses, and...