| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Gale J. Thomas | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That he enlisted when he was 17 years old and was promised by his recruiter that he would be able to participate in the Vietnam War, instead he was shipped to Germany and never got the chance to do his part in the war which caused him to receive a general discharge. He further states that he was unaware of the consequences of the discharge papers he signed. The applicant submits no evidence in support of his request.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 26 February 1971, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 2 years. A DA Form 3286-3 (Part VI - Regular Army Enlistment Option), authenticated by the applicant’s signature, shows that there were no spoken or written promises made to him in connection with his enlistment.
The applicant successfully completed basic and advanced individual training and was awarded the Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 36K (Wireman). He served in Germany from July 1971 to September 1972.
On 24 January 1972, he accepted nonjudical punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being drunk and disorderly, and for disobeying a lawful order. His punishment included reduction to pay grade E-2 (suspended for 30 days) and a forfeiture (suspended for 30 days).
On 12 June 1972, he accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ for sleeping on post. His punishment was reduction to pay grade E-2.
On 15 June 1972, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability. His commander’s decision was based on the applicant’s apathetic and defective attitude towards the Army and his inability to expend effort constructively. Without constant supervision, he was unable to complete even the simplest of missions, and his conduct was a hazard to the military mission and the discipline of the company.
On 6 July 1972, a physical examination and mental status evaluation cleared the applicant for separation.
On 31 July 1972, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant acknowledged his commander’s intent to separate him for unsuitability. He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and his right to legal representation. He elected not to submit statements in his own behalf. He also acknowledged that he understood that he could encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in the event he was issued a general discharge.
On 31 August 1972, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge for unsuitability, and directed the issuance of a general discharge.
On 18 September 1972, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) indicates he had 1 year, 6 months and 23 days of creditable service.
Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability. It provided, in pertinent part, for discharge due to unsuitability because of apathy by a displayed lack of appropriate interest and/or an inability to expend effort constructively. When separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record.
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. There is no evidence in the available records to substantiate the applicant’s claim that his recruiter promised him he would be able to participate in the Vietnam War, or that his assignment to Germany and not Vietnam was the cause of him receiving a general discharge.
2. The applicant's contention that he was young at the time of his enlistment is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.
3. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
4. The applicant declined counsel, waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers, and acknowledged that he understood the effects of a general discharge.
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
__CLA __ __MHM__ __JTM __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002068922 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002068922 |
| 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. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003142
The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), dated 4 April 1972, in support of his request. On 22 March 1972, the applicant's battalion commander also recommended approval of the applicant's elimination from the Army with a General Discharge Certificate. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and the character of the discharge is commensurate with the...
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 | CY2009 | 20090004974
He completed a DD Form 398 (Statement of Personal History) on 3 December 1969 which shows the spelling of his first name as Stephen. However, the applicant's service record shows he served in the military and was discharged using the spelling of his first name as Stephen. This Board action will be filed in his military records so that a record of the proper spelling of his first name he is currently using will be on hand.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019710
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests correction of his military records by showing that his general under honorable conditions characterization of service was upgraded to honorable. There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
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 | 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 | 20090014608
On 19 August 1971, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for absenting himself from his appointed place of duty on 15 August 1971. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The applicants record of service included three nonjudicial punishments.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027644
However, he now believes he should have been granted a medical discharge in 1971 and the administrative action taken by his unit commanders under Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations Discharge Unfitness and Unsuitability) for unfitness/unsuitability was based on incomplete evidence. He also believes his case may fall under Civil Action Number 77-0904 of 27 November 1979 referenced in Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records), paragraph 4-1a, since...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110007845
On 3 April 1972, he departed his training unit in an AWOL status. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unsuitability and issued a general discharge. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and the character of service is commensurate with his overall record of military service.
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.