| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr. | Member | ||
| Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD), and that he be credited with 2 additional days of service.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was discharged because he was overweight and was never afforded the opportunity to be placed in the overweight program. He states that he has an extensive medical history that is documented in his Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical records. He states, he moved to Texas and in an attempt to receive medical treatment, he was told that his active duty service was 2 days short of the two years needed to qualify for medical benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). He finally states that without the VA medical care his health is in danger. In support of his application, he submits a copy of his separation document
(DD Form 214).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 7 December 1982, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 2 years. He successfully completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 72E (Combat Telecommunications Center Operator). His record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition, and it confirms that the highest rank he attained while on active duty was private first class/E-3.
The applicant’s record contains an extensive disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on the following two separate occasions for the offenses indicated: 31 January 1984, for absenting himself from his appointed place of duty without proper authority; and 14 May 1984, for absenting himself from his appointed place of duty without proper authority and disobeying a lawful order. In addition, the applicant was formally counseled by members of his chain of command for the following infractions: speeding in the motor pool; three occasions of failure to report to his appointed place of duty; unsatisfactory progress in the weight control program; twice for failure to meet uniform requirements; failure to shave his mustache; and for not shining his boots. In addition, on 28 August 1984, the applicant was barred from reenlistment based on this disciplinary history.
On 8 November 1984, the applicant’s unit commander notified him that separation action was being initiated against him under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsatisfactorily performance. The reasons cited for the action were the applicant’s failure to report to his appointed place of duty on four separate occasions, his substandard military appearance, speeding in the motor pool, disobeying a lawful order, overweight program failure, past due accounts, and writing bad checks.
The applicant consulted counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. The appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation with a GD and on 5 December 1984, the applicant was discharged accordingly. At the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 1 year, 11 months, and
29 days of active military service.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander’s judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.
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 applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations in effect at the time, and the Board concludes that it accurately reflects his overall record of service.
2. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that the reason for his discharge was his being overweight, and that he was not afforded the opportunity to be placed in the overweight program, but it finds these claims lack merit. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s separation was based upon his unsatisfactory performance as a soldier, of which his failure to meet Army weight standards was only a part. In addition, the record confirms he was placed in and unsuccessfully participated in a weight control program, for which he was counseled.
3. Notwithstanding the applicant’s medical history, the Board finds that the applicant’s disciplinary history and poor duty performance clearly diminished the overall quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge, and there is no basis for granting him credit for 2 additional days of service. Thus, the Board concludes that the requested relief is not warranted in this case.
4. 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.
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
AAO HOF TEO DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002067210 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/04/30 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (GD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19841205 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Unsatisfactory Performance |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.4900 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004566C070205
The applicant requests that his discharge be corrected to an honorable discharge for medical reasons. On 30 January 1984 the applicant was separated with a general discharge due to unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 30 January 1984; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011896
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 January 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110011896 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. __________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 | CY2003 | 2003090647C070212
He was denied extension of his enlistment at his expiration term of service (ETS) but the underlying reason was a suspension of favorable personnel actions for being on the Army's weight control program. The 24 January 2002 letter from The Office of the Adjutant General, State of California indicates the applicant's unit requested a one-time waiver, not to exceed 12 months, in order for him to extend to qualify towards attaining 20 qualifying years for retirement. Since he was 48 years old...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711587
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 to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. On 9 January 1984, his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079815C070215
Members who failed to meet the Army weight control standards who were recommended for separation by their commanders were processed under these provisions of the regulation. The evidence of record confirms that the sole reason for the applicant’s discharge was his failure to meet AWCP standards. However, under current regulatory standards, the reason for the applicant’s discharge would not warrant a GD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089826C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Army policy states that a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but a GD or HD may be granted. The offense for which he was convicted by a summary court-martial was relatively minor in nature; however, he was offered, and refused, the opportunity to resolve the matter by NJP.
USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00695
MD01-00695 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010420, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Recommended loss of 5 pounds per month and a total of 30 pounds within 180 days.990615: Counseling: Applicant assigned to the Weight Control Program to correct deficiency of not meeting height/weight standards. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140009075
c. 3 April 1984 he received counseling for being in the overweight program since 10 August 1983 and not making satisfactory progress as he actually had gained weight and the recommendation for his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Separation), chapter 13. On 5 April 1984, the applicant's company commander initiated action to discharge the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-2, for failure to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059774C070421
Effective 8 September 1982 the applicant was separated in the pay grade of E-6 under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200 for unsuitability. The applicant’s available records also show that he enlisted in the ARNG after his separation from active duty. There is no evidence of record, and none submitted by the applicant, that his medical treatment on active duty was inadequate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025142
His records show he underwent several unit weigh-ins during 1982 and 1983 and in each case he exceeded the weight and height table of Army Regulation 600-9 (The Army Weight Control Program). On 7 February 1984, the applicants immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) by reason of unsatisfactory performance. The evidence of record shows the applicant...