| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Member | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that her general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that she asked to be released from active duty after her brother was killed. She contends that she was not content being in the military, that the military did not live up to her standards, and that she felt violated while in the military. She also contends that she was told her discharge would automatically be upgraded after a certain amount of time. In support of her application, she submits a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated 14 June 2000.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted on 14 January 1972 for a period of 3 years. She successfully completed basic and advanced individual training and was transferred to Fort Dix, New Jersey, for duty as a personnel specialist.
On 12 October 1972, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 11 September 1972 to
26 September 1972. Her punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2 (suspended for 30 days).
Records show that between 23 October 1972 and 6 April 1973, the applicant was counseled on 16 occasions (no other details available).
On 12 February 1973, the applicant’s unit commander initiated action to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsuitability. She cited that the applicant’s duty performance was substandard and that because of her performance of duty and lack of interest in the military, the applicant was retested for aptitude scores on 26 March 1973.
The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and separation medical examination on 11 April 1973 and was found qualified for separation.
On 27 April 1973, the applicant was notified of her pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsuitability.
On 30 April 1973, after consulting with counsel, the applicant waived consideration of her case by a board of officers, representation by counsel and elected to submit a statement on her behalf. However, the applicant’s statement is not available for review. The applicant also acknowledged that she may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge were issued.
The available records do not contain the separation authority’s action. However, separation orders show the applicant was discharged with a general discharge on 17 May 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, for unsuitability due to character and behavior disorders.
The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows that she had 1 year, 3 months and 18 days of total active service with 15 days lost due to AWOL.
There is no indication in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.
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.
The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable. The Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically state that no factors should be established which would require automatic change or denial of a change in discharge.
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 told her discharge would automatically be upgraded after a certain amount of time. However, an upgrade is not automatic and there is no evidence which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade within the 15-year statute of limitations.
2. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize her rights.
3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
4. The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that her discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.
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
FNE____ MKP_____ LE______ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001065297 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020207 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (GD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19730517 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 Chapter 13 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Unsuitability due to character and behavior disorders |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0200 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010104
The applicant provides a psychiatric evaluation, discharge summary, and DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty). This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074233C070403
Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 28 December 1973, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsuitability, due to a character and behavior disorder. At the time of his discharge he was found to be medically fit for separation and he has failed to show through the evidence of record or the evidence submitted with his application that such was not the case. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075898C070403
Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 25 July 1973, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsuitability due to a character and behavior disorder. Consequently, due to the concepts involved, an individual’s medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002890
On 6 October 1973, the unit commander recommended the applicant's separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, paragraph 13-5 for unsuitability. On 11 October 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsuitability, and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. The applicant's record is void of evidence showing he appealed to the Army Discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011227C070208
This medical record indicates the applicant applied for separation from the military under the provisions of Army Regulation 40-501 due to asthma. Chapter 7 of this regulation 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027239
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a stated an honorable discharge was a separation with honor. The evidence of record shows the applicant had one special court-martial and received three punishments under Article 15 for being AWOL. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected: a. by showing the applicant was separated from the service on 14 August 1973, with an Honorable Discharge, under the provisions of Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010137
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. At the time of his discharge, the applicant was properly separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13-5b, by reason of unsuitability, due to a character and behavior disorder. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing he was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9510470C070209
She states that she did not have a character or behavior disorder, but was mentally ill. He recommended that she be separated for unsuitability under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012302
On 17 April 1973, the company commander recommended that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of chapter 13, paragraphs 5b(2) and 5b(3), Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), by reason of unsuitability. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was discharged from the service under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsuitability, character and behavior disorder. As stated in the regulation, if the reason for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019306
On 8 November 1973, the applicants immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate action to eliminate him from the Army under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel) by reason of unsuitability. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 with a character of service as under honorable conditions (general). The discharge proceedings were...