| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Stephanie Thompkins | Analyst |
| Ms. Shirley L. Powell | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Stanley Kelley | Member | |
| Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That his discharge should be changed on the grounds of reasonable doubt and also the evidence in his military records. He also states that his 201 file will show he was not a bad soldier. He received the Good Conduct Medal while in Vietnam and even reenlisted for Vietnam service. He also states that he broke under the stress of combat after 10 1/2 months.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-1 on 16 January 1969 and served continuously until his discharge on 19 September 1969.
He reenlisted on 20 September 1969 and attained the rank of pay grade E-4 on 10 February 1971.
He was reported AWOL from 2 December 1969 to 25 February 1970.
On 7 March 1968, a special court-martial convened for this AWOL. He was found guilty and sentenced to 6 months hard labor.
A psychiatric examination on 5 October 1970 found the applicant to have a passive-aggressive personality, chronic, severe, manifested by inability to adapt to military life. There is no evidence of mental disease, defect, or derangement sufficient to warrant medical disposition and the subject was and is mentally responsible both to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right. It was strongly recommended the applicant be separated from the service.
On 29 June 1971, his commander recommended he be eliminated from the service for unsuitability. The commander states that the action was based on the fact that the applicant had established a pattern of shirking his duties and using dangerous drugs, and that rehabilitation would be unsuccessful.
He was discharged on 28 July 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability, and issued a general discharge under honorable conditions. He had a total of 1 year, 7 months and 14 days net active service this period and 85 days lost time.
His records show he received conduct ratings of “Unsatisfactory”, and efficiency ratings of “Unsatisfactory”. He received one field grade Article 15 and one company level Article 15, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, for misconduct.
The applicant’s discharge proceedings are not a matter of record.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within the board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability. It provided, in pertinent part, for discharge due to unsuitability because of apathy of those individuals who displayed a lack of appropriate interest and/or an inability to expend effort constructively. 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.
Paragraph 3-7 of this regulation provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.
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. In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge to honorable. He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.
2. The Board notes the applicant’s contentions that he was not a bad soldier, he was awarded the Good Conduct Medal and broke under the stress of combat service. However, the applicant received conduct and efficiency ratings of ”Unsatisfactory” and his commander felt that any further attempts at rehabilitation would be unsuccessful. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of the request.
3. In view of the applicant's overall record for his period of service from 20 September 1969 to 28 July 1971, it does not appear that his general discharge was too severe.
4. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.
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
_sep____ _sk____ _eja____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001064021 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020319 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021730
The psychiatrist recommended the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability. Given the circumstances in this case, the applicant's discharge was inequitable for the following reasons: * he served 4 years, 1 month, and 4 days of creditable service * he served in Vietnam for 1 year, 8 months, and 27 days * he was twice wounded and twice cited for meritorious service * he was promoted to SSG/E-6 in three short years * from 30 November 1966 to 7 May...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020397
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 29 May 1971. The evidence of record shows the applicant displayed a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by his multiple instances of NJP and bar to reenlistment for various infractions throughout his military service. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and the character of service is commensurate with his overall record of military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004126C070208
Larry Olson | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests that his records be corrected to reflect award of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm and that his March 1971 general discharge be upgraded to fully honorable. Such conduct is evidence that the applicant continued to be able to serve honorably following his return from Vietnam and that may have contributed to his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013984
On 1 February 1971, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of AR 635-212 by reason of unsuitability and directed the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that Board's 15-year statute of limitations. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110022523
It was recommended the unit initiate separation action under Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability). 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. However, his service record indicates he received four Article 15s for various offenses and was enrolled in an Amnesty Program for drug abuse where he failed to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019710
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests correction of his military records by showing that his general under honorable conditions characterization of service was upgraded to honorable. There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003372
The applicant provides no additional evidence with his application. 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. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017533
On 6 May 1982, after carefully reviewing the applicant's entire record of military service and the issues and evidence he presented in his application, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined the applicant's discharge was proper and equitable, and it voted to deny his request for an upgrade of his discharge. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004103
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to a fully honorable discharge. On 12 February 1971, the separation authority directed the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unsuitability with a general discharge. His service medical records are not available for review with this case and there is no indication in his military personnel records that shows he suffered from PTSD or an illness or an injury that rendered him unable to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027644
However, he now believes he should have been granted a medical discharge in 1971 and the administrative action taken by his unit commanders under Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations Discharge Unfitness and Unsuitability) for unfitness/unsuitability was based on incomplete evidence. He also believes his case may fall under Civil Action Number 77-0904 of 27 November 1979 referenced in Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records), paragraph 4-1a, since...