| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Joyce A. Hall | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be corrected to a medical discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was infected with Hepatitis (Viral) and he was not cured. He was told that his life expectancy was shortened and that he would have various medical problems that would affect him later in life. He believes that the cerebral effect of the Hepatitis was the cause of his actions that led to his discharge. The applicant submits researched information concerning the cerebral effect of Hepatitis and copies of his clinical record in support of his application.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
After having had prior honorable active service and reserve service the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 June 1975, for 4 years. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B10 (Infantryman).
The applicant was assigned to Company C, 3rd Battalion, 60th Infantry, 9th Infantry Division, Fort Lewis, Washington, as a grenadier.
The applicant provides a copy of the Clinical Record Cover Sheet (DA Form 3647), which shows that he was admitted to Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, Washington on 25 August 1975, for treatment of Hepatitis. The form also shows that the applicant was place on convalescent leave from
17 September to 7 October 1975. He was returned to duty after the expiration of his convalescent leave.
On 8 July 1976, the applicant was reported absent without leave (AWOL). He was returned to military control on 18 October 1976.
On 22 October 1976, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 8 July to 17 October 1976.
On 28 October 1976, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. He submitted a statement in his behalf. The applicant stated in effect, that he went AWOL because he was only allowed 5 weeks leave and that he had a drug problem. He also stated that he wanted out of the military and if returned to duty he could not guarantee his actions.
On 27 October 1976, a mental and physical evaluation found the applicant qualified for separation.
On 3 November 1976, the applicant was evaluated by the Rehabilitation Center, at Fort Ord, California. The applicant was interviewed, screened for psychological manifestations, give urinalysis testing and prior facts and prior program involvement was taken into account. The evaluation determined that the applicant was not drug dependent at that time.
On 19 November 1976, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
On 30 November 1976, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service with a discharge UOTHC. During this period of service he had completed 1 year,
2 months and 6 days of creditable active service and he had 102 days of time lost.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority of the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of that regulation provided, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trail by court. A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.
Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. The regulation defines “physically unfit” as unfitness due to physical disability. The unfitness is of such a degree that a soldier is unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating in such a way as to reasonably fulfill the purposes of his employment on active duty.
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 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.
2. The evidence available to the Board shows that the applicant was treated for Hepatitis. However, there is no medical evidence and the applicant has not provided any evidence that would warrant medical processing. In fact the applicant stated on his separation physical that he was in good health.
3. The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.
4. The type of discharge and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
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
__rvo___ __rjw___ __dph___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001065577 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020409 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19761130 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, Chapter 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A70.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.7000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012949
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicants medical records show he was placed on convalescent leave on 2 December 1976 for serum Hepatitis. The applicant's record of service shows he received two NJP's for being AWOL, one AWOL period was extensive.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087577C070212
Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant enlisted in the military in May 1972 and entered active duty as a Regular Army Soldier for a period of 3 years on 15 September 1973. The evidence indicates that the applicant continued to perform his military duties following his 1976 kidney operation until the date of his release from active duty in October 1976. Although the applicant may have had his left kidney removed, there is no evidence that it impacted on his ability to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051392C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 19 March 1974, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years with 3 years, 7 months and 18 days of prior honorable service. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001051392SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20010320TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE19760121DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200,chp10 .
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062073C070421
The applicant was AWOL for the first time from 23 – 25 January 1970. A Clinical Record Cover Sheet, DA Form 3647-1, shows that he spent 224 days in the hospital -- an admission date of 30 April, Julian date 120, plus 224 equals Julian date 344, 10 December. The applicant returned from AWOL on 13 January 1972, was placed in pre-trial confinement from 24 January- 28 March 1972, and went AWOL again from 24 April – 30 November 1972.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068651C070402
He was involuntarily ordered to active duty from the Army National Guard of the United States on 14 August 1975 for a period of 19 months and 12 days. On 7 October 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. Army policy states that although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061538C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he was severely injured in an automobile accident in 1970 and subsequently was released from the military medical facility at Fort Gordon, Georgia. The Board notes that the applicant requested administrative separation in lieu of trial by court-martial and acknowledged the consequences of receiving an under other than honorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087425C070212
On 11 June 1980 the applicant's commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be eliminated from the Army for unsuitability. A member separated for unsuitability will receive a general or honorable discharge characterization of service as warranted by his military record. The medical evidence of record indicates that the applicant was medically fit for retention at the time of his separation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072143C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. She states that she was discharged without being compensated, and that she was never given a separation physical before she was discharged. On 13 February 2001 the VA granted her a 30 percent service connected disability rating for pyelolithotomy, effective 16 May 2000.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091009C070212
He requested consideration of his case by a board of officers. The applicant was present at the board proceedings and was represented by counsel. The board recommended that the applicant be discharged because of misconduct with a discharge certificate under other than honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060941C070421
An Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) brief dated 19 May 1976 indicates the applicant requested a discharge in lieu of court-martial on 13 March 1972, that he made no statement in his own behalf, that he understood the consequences of a general discharge or a discharge UOTHC, and that his request was approved by the appropriate authority on 21 March 1972. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record,...