| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Gale J. Thomas | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Ms. Paula Mokulis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge. The applicant indicates his discharge was unjust. In support of his request the applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).
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:
On 31 December 1962, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.
On 27 July 1963, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being absent from his unit without a proper pass. His punishment was forfeiture, restriction and extra duty.
On 12 August 1963, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of breaking restriction and unlawfully entering the privately owned vehicle of a noncommissioned officer. He was sentenced to 45 days of hard labor without
confinement, a forfeiture and reduction to pay grade E-1.
On 15 October 1963, the applicant’s commander recommended his elimination from the service, stating that his conduct and efficiency were unsatisfactory, that he needed constant supervision and guidance while performing the simplest of jobs, and was a continual disciplinary problem.
On 16 October 1963, he underwent a psychiatric evaluation. The evaluating psychiatrist stated that the applicant was experiencing difficulty both on and off the job; that he was probably below average in intelligence, and that there was no evidence of psychosis. The findings and conclusions of the evaluation stated that the applicant lacked the intellectual endowment necessary to perform as an efficient soldier, and recommended separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209.
On 21 October 1963, he acknowledged his commander’s intent to eliminate him from military service. He declined legal counsel, and waived a hearing before a board of officers. He acknowledged he understood the ramification of receiving a less than honorable discharge, and made a statement that he did not feel he could put up with the discipline in the Army, that if he stayed in the military he might get into serious trouble with other noncommissioned officers telling him what to do all the time.
On 18 November 1963, the appropriate separation authority approved his commander’s recommendation and directed the applicant’s separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209.
On 2 December 1963, he was discharged under honorable conditions, by reason of unsuitability, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209. His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) indicates he had 11 months and 2 days of total active service.
Army Regulation 635-209, in effect at the time, set forth the policy and prescribed procedures for eliminating enlisted personnel for unsuitability. Action was to be taken to discharge an individual for unsuitability when, in the commander's opinion, it was clearly established that: the individual was unlikely to develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a satisfactory soldier or the individual's psychiatric or physical condition was such as to not warrant discharge for disability. Unsuitability included inaptitude, character and behavior disorders, disorders of intelligence and transient personality disorders due to acute or special stress, apathy, defective attitude, and inability to expend effort constructively. A general or honorable discharge was considered appropriate.
On 11 June 1997, this Board denied the applicant’s request to correct his records to show he was separated from the service by reason of physical disability.
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 2 December 1963, the date the applicant was discharged. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 2 December 1966.
The application is dated 12 November 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
__FNE __ __RWA__ __PM___ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2002066899 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020516 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 142.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9508100C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be corrected to an honorable medical disability retirement. That recommendation was approved and the applicant was issued a General Discharge Certificate for unsuitability on 15 March 1965 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209. The application is dated 16 March 1995 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011266C070208
The applicant requests that his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge. On 23 January 1963, the appropriate separation authority approved the discharge request and directed the issuance of a general discharge. That determination was well within the separation’s authority at that time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060269C070421
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. There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, which indicates that he suffered from any medically disqualifying condition which would have...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005529
The applicant states that he was placed on psychiatric evaluation in December 1963, and a short time later he was discharged. However, no evidence of neurosis or psychosis was found, he was diagnosed with a character and behavior disorder, and he was psychiatrically cleared for an administrative separation. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to show that the applicant was improperly separated administratively under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 rather than medically...
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 | CY2014 | 20140000645
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge under honorable conditions to an honorable discharge. The Brotzman Memorandum required that the revised provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 be applied retroactively when reviewing applications for discharge upgrades based on personality disorders. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140000645 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140000645 2 ARMY BOARD...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090771C070212
The applicant was discharged on 27 August 1963. However, the evidence of record shows that prior to the applicant's discharge in August 1963, competent medical authority determined that he was then medically qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111111. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012294
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 23 November 1962, the applicant signed a statement acknowledging that he had been advised by his commander that he was being recommended for elimination from the service for unsuitability under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unsuitability). As for not being told the reason for his discharge, he signed a statement saying that he was told he was being processed for unsuitability, the type...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008697
There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. There is no evidence of record, and the applicant provides insufficient evidence, that shows the applicant was found mentally (or physically) unfit for retention in military service during the period of service under review. _______ _ X_______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110023464
On 24 April 1965, the applicant's company commander recommended he be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unsuitability). The evidence of record shows the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability was administratively correct, all requirements of law and regulations were met, the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process, and the applicant was...