| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Mark D. Manning | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the reason for her discharge be changed to “under special circumstances.”
APPLICANT STATES: That her mother requested she return home to help care for her father, a veteran who was disabled due to two major strokes and several mini-strokes. Her brother was too young to help. She provides as supporting evidence her Report of Transfer or Discharge, DD Form 214, and an 11 May 1999 letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs informing her that she is not eligible for disability benefits because she served on active duty for less than 90 days.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
She enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 November 1971.
On 27 January 1972, the applicant’s company commander initiated separation action under Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability due to the applicant’s apathy. On 1 February 1972, the applicant was advised of her rights by counsel. She waived her right to consideration of her case by a board of officers; waived personal appearance before a board; and waived representation by counsel. She elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.
On 31 January 1972, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.
On 1 February 1972, the applicant’s commander recommended the applicant be separated for unsuitability. The commander stated the applicant failed to meet the minimum standards of basic training. Her bed was poorly made; her wall lockers were disorganized. Her personal appearance was substandard. She refused assistance from her platoon sergeant. She continued to receive the same demerits day after day. Her negative attitude toward all training and her lack of response to counseling and assistance were evidence of her apathy. She had been assigned to two basic training companies but in each case she failed to respond to counseling and rehabilitative efforts.
On 7 February 1972, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant be furnished an Honorable Discharge Certificate.
On 11 February 1972, the applicant was discharged with an honorable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability. She had completed 2 months and 26 days of creditable active service.
On 16 January 1973, the applicant applied for a change in her reenlistment code. She indicated in her application that she requested a discharge because she was needed at home and therefore she could not perform to her full potential within the system. However, she was told that she was ineligible for discharge due to the fact that she was not the sole means of family income. In effect, an unsuitability discharge was the only way she could get out.
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members were subject to separation for unsuitability for inaptitude, character and behavior disorders, apathy (lack of appropriate interest), defective attitudes,
and inability to expend effort constructively, alcoholism, and enuresis. A general under honorable conditions characterization of service was normally appropriate.
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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with regulations applicable at the time. The narrative reason for separation was appropriate given the provisions under which the applicant was separated.
3. Although the only evidence is the applicant’s own statement, the Board acknowledges that she may have requested discharge due to family problems and an unsuitability discharge was the only remedy her command could offer her. A general discharge under honorable conditions was normally appropriate and would have been appropriate considering the commander’s statement given in support of the recommendation for separation. Yet, the applicant was given a fully honorable discharge. However, there is no category of separation of “under special circumstances.” Unfortunately for circumstances occurring almost 30 years later, she was discharged prior to completing 90 days of active service.
4. Regrettably, 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
__kak___ __mdm___ __tl____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002067764 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020423 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.02 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008757
The applicant requests, in effect, that the reason and authority listed on her DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) be changed from Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations-Discharge-Unfitness and Unsuitability) to Army Regulation 600-9 (The Army Weight Control Program). This regulation provided that Soldiers failing to meet the minimum weight control standards were subject to separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017484
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. On 5 July 1973, consistent with the chain of command's recommendations, the separation authority approved the FSMs discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unsuitability and directed he be furnished a General...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017144
On 23 June 1972, his immediate commander recommended the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, paragraph 6b(3) for apathy. 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. This regulation prescribed that an individual discharged for unsuitability would be furnished an honorable or a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011266
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant provides a DD Form 214 and military medical treatment records in support of this application. On 4 October 1972, the applicant's unit commander initiated action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-212 (Personnel Separations) for unsuitability.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000260C070206
There is no evidence in the available records to show that she ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board and while they are not supported by either evidence submitted with her application or the evidence of record, they are also not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to her otherwise undistinguished record of service during...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019953
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was almost 24 years old at the time he enlisted in the RA. He has not shown error or injustice in the type of discharge he received as his overall record of service was not completely honorable.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067588C070402
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions (a general discharge) on 19 August 1969 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability due to character and behavior disorders. On 6 January 1971 and on 16 June 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s requests for a discharge upgrade to honorable. That the Department issue to her an Honorable Discharge Certificate, dated 19 August 1969, in lieu of the general discharge of the same...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007071
Subsequent to this acknowledgement, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unsuitability with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect (July 1966), set forth the policy and procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations...
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 | CY2010 | 20100025516
The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of her general under honorable conditions discharge (GD) to an honorable discharge (HD). On 27 October 1967, she was discharged accordingly. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100025516 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100025516 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1