| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his rank be reinstated on his discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he had no personality disorder, but suffered a nervous breakdown. He goes on to state that he was a good sergeant and after his breakdown, things did not go so well.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records were partially destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri, which destroyed millions of service records. However, information obtained from the surviving records show:
He was initially inducted in Atlanta, Georgia, on 3 July 1952 and served until he was honorably released from active duty on 5 May 1954 in the rank of sergeant (SGT). He enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 July 1954 and on 14 June 1956, he reenlisted for a period of 6 years.
On 10 February 1957, he was convicted by a special court-martial of disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer. He was sentenced to a reduction to the pay grade of E-2.
On 18 March 1957, while stationed in Korea, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for being in an off-limits area. His punishment consisted of 14 days of extra duty.
On 17 April 1957, the applicant underwent a neuro-psychiatric examination and was diagnosed with aggressive reaction. The psychiatrist opined that his condition was of such a nature that it would prevent him from performing effectively and recommended administrative discharge for unsuitability under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209.
On 23 April 1957, he underwent a psychiatric evaluation and was diagnosed with aggressive reaction, manifested by destructive behavior in reaction to frustration. Again, administrative discharge for unsuitability was recommended.
The applicant’s commander submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, for unsuitability on 8 May 1957. He cited as the basis for his request, the applicant’s disciplinary record, the psychiatric reports, and the applicant’s display of explosive aggressive reactions that were considered dangerous to himself and others.
The applicant appeared before a board of officers on 20 May 1957, who were appointed to determine if the applicant should remain in the service or be discharged. He was represented by counsel and elected not to call any witnesses or make a statement in his own behalf. After hearing testimony and reviewing the evidence of record, the board found that the applicant was unsuitable for further military service because of character and behavior disorders and disruptive reactions to acute or special stress. The board recommended that he be discharged for unsuitability under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 and issued a General Discharge Certificate.
The appropriate authority approved the findings and recommendation of the board and the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions on 3 July 1957, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, for unsuitability based on character and behavior disorders. He was discharged in the rank of private.
On 19 October 1978, he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. The ADRB approved his request on 20 February 1980 and upgraded his discharge to honorable based on current standards.
Army Regulation 635-209, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel by reason of unsuitability when it was determined that it was unlikely that an individual would develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a satisfactory soldier. An honorable or general discharge was authorized.
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 applicant’s contention that he should not have been separated in the rank of private at the time of his discharge has been noted by the Board and appears to be without merit. The applicant was reduced as a result of his conviction at a trial by court-martial and not as a result of his discharge. Accordingly, he was properly discharged in the rank he held at the time of discharge and he has provided no evidence to show that he was discharged in the wrong rank.
3. 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
__dh____ ___cla___ __be____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002066377 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/06/13 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 322 | 133.0000/RED IN RK |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010502
The applicant requests his general, under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. There is no evidence he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: * issuing the applicant a new DD Form 214 reflecting his character of service as honorable * issuing the applicant an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005480
The examiner recommended that he appear before a Board of Officers to determine whether he should be discharged by reason of unfitness. Army Regulation 635-209 (Personnel Separations Unsuitability), also in effect at the time of the applicant's discharge, provided the policies, procedures, and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unsuitable for further military service. Had he been given a GD in accordance with the regulations at the time of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008624
The applicant requests that his general discharge be changed to an honorable discharge due to disability. He was separated with a general discharge on 23 November 1959 under the provisions of Army Regulation 636-209 (Personnel Separations- Discharge - Unsuitability) due to a character and behavior disorder. _______ _ x_______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110007972
On 10 December 1964, the applicant's commander initiated a request to discharge the applicant for unsuitability under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 (Personnel Separations Discharge Unsuitability). He was diagnosed with a character and behavior disorder by a military psychiatrist and he was discharged for unsuitability due to a character and behavior disorder with a general discharge. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080002855
The battalion commander stated that in an attempt to rehabilitate the applicant, he was transferred to another company on 3 October 1960. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. Counsel contended that the applicant should have been discharged under Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015564
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 27 April 1965, the unit commander recommended the applicant's discharge for unsuitability under the provisions of Army Regulation 653-209. On 12 May 1965, the applicant was discharged accordingly.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073389C070403
The examining psychiatrist noted that the applicant was eligible for separation under Army Regulation 635-209, but was considered cleared psychiatrically for any administrative disposition deemed appropriate by his command. On 2 October 1962 the company commander initiated action to administratively discharge the applicant with a general discharge under Army Regulation 635-209. Thereafter, the type of discharge and the character of service were to be determined solely by the individual's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008741
After being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation, its effects, and the rights available to him, he waived his right to consideration of his case by a board of officers, to a personal appearance before a board of officers, and to counsel. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under honorable conditions, on 1 March 1963, under the procedures of Army Regulation 635-209, for character and behavior disorder. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070016443
He does not believe he should have been discharged from the Army for "unsuitability." The Board did not determine that the authority or reason for his discharge was in error. A second memorandum, dated 8 February 1978, and better known as the Nelson Memorandum, expanded the review policy and specified that the presence of a personality disorder diagnosis would justify upgrade of a discharge to fully honorable except in cases where there are "clear and demonstrable reasons" why a fully...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004102655C070208
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. On 21 September 1961, the applicant’s unit commander recommended that a Board of Officers be appointed under the provisions of AR 635-208 to determine if he should be discharged from the service for unfitness. Action was to be taken to discharge an individual for unsuitability when, in the commander's opinion, it...