| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr. | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to general. He states that he would like to be considered, “under the amnesty umbrella set forth by President Clinton for all Vietnam era military personnel who resisted the Vietnam War.”
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:
The applicant was granted a moral waiver and inducted on 31 August 1967. He was 20 years old and had a ninth grade education. He never completed training.
He received nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for absence from his appointed place of duty and two special court-martial convictions for extended absences without leave (AWOLs).
A psychiatric examination on 22 November 1968 produced a diagnoses of chronic, severe emotionally unstable personality manifested by depression, mood swings, heavy drug use, inability to tolerate frustration, irresponsibility and poor impulse control. It noted that the applicant might be suffering the long term effects of heavy LSD usage. A 13 November 1969 psychiatric examination produced a diagnosis of chronic, severe inadequate personality manifested by repeated AWOLs, antisocial behavior, drug usage, faulty judgment, poor motivation, non-commitment to productive goals and lack of response to rehabilitative efforts. In both cases he was considered mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right. He was considered to be able to understand and participate in the administrative separation process. There were no disqualifying mental or physical defects requiring processing through medical channels. Administrative separation was recommended.
He was processed for elimination (the separation package is not of record) and, on 15 December 1969, he was separated with a undesirable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. He had 1 year and 3 months of creditable service and 375 days lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, failure to pay just debts and drug abuse were subject to separation for unfitness. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.
There is no known “amnesty umbrella.” There is no policy or program that requires the automatic upgrading of any discharge.
The law requires that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, this Board must presume that the action taken was accomplished properly.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
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.
DISCUSSION: The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered on 15 December 1969, the date of the discharge. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 15 December 1972.
The application is dated 29 June 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
_RVO___ __RJW__ __DPH __ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2001063621 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020409 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19691215 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-212 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A50.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 142.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004592
On 7 October 1970, the applicant's unit commander recommended that he be required to appear before a board of officers to consider his separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. There were no medical records available to the Board and the applicant provided no medical records. Additionally, as stated in Army Regulation 635-212, when separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085244C070212
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. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant has not presented and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004681C070206
Allen L. Raub | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. He was honorably discharged on 29 July 1969 and reenlisted on 30 July 1969, for a period of 3 years and assignment to Vietnam. On 14 August 1970, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for being disrespectful in language towards a superior noncommissioned officer.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076672C070215
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. Soldiers discharged for unfitness received undesirable discharges. His undesirable discharge and characterization of his service was appropriate and he has...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120003495
The DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) he was issued confirms he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. There is no evidence in his record and he did not provide any evidence that shows he applied for a clemency discharge or that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089610C070403
Accordingly, on 26 September 1974, the applicant was discharged from the Army with an undesirable discharge. He was credited with 1 year, 5 months, and 16 days of active military service and 1, 833 days of lost time. 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 timely file this application within the 3-year statute...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710975
However, the examining physician found him to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and mentally capable of understanding and participating in board proceedings.On 19 August 1969, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 12 November to 12 December 1968, 14 December 1968 to 9 January 1969 and 13 January to 3 July 1969. In his application to that Board is a statement wherein he blamed the discharge on no one...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075234C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 18 December 1974, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. On 18 December 1974, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608775C070209
He was in confinement from 7 August 1968 until 2 January 1969. On 16 September 1969 the applicants commanding officer recommended that the applicant be discharged for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the undesirable discharge that he might receive.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069865C070402
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: The record does not indicate whether the request was granted.