| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Paul Wright | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Member | |
| Mr. Jose A. Martinez | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his General Discharge (GD) be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge (HD).
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 29 October 1970, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years. He successfully completed Basic Combat Training (BCT) and Advanced Individual Training (AIT) and he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 16F20, Light Air Defense Artillery Crewman. While still in AIT on 5 March 1971, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for willfully disobeying a lawful order from his superior noncommissioned officer. Punishment consisted of forfeiture of $30.00 per month for 1 month.
Upon graduation from AIT, the applicant was assigned to duty in Germany with Battery A, 1st Battalion, 59th Artillery. He performed duties as a Track Vehicle Driver from 29 April 1971 to 8 November 1971.
On 5 May 1971, the applicant accepted NJP for being absent from his unit from 0900-2130 hours on 4 May 1971. Punishment included restriction for 14 days and extra duty for 14 days.
On 7 June 1971, the applicant accepted NJP for failing to go to duty, failing to obey a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer, and for being incapacitated for duty because of being intoxicated from prior indulgence of liquor. Punishment included forfeiture of $40.00 for 1 month, 7 days' extra duty, and 7 days' restriction. The forfeiture was suspended until 7 August 1971.
On 19 October 1971, the applicant accepted NJP for assaulting another enlisted man on 11 October 1971. Punishment consisted of reduction to pay grade E-3.
On 2 November 1971, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending him for separation under the provisions of paragraph 6b(3), Army Regulation (AR) 635-212. He was advised of his rights.
On 5 November 1971, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant waived a hearing by a board of officers and declined to submit a statement in his behalf. He further indicated he understood he could encounter prejudice in civilian life in the event he was issued a GD.
On 8 November 1971, the applicant's commander recommended that he be separated under the provisions of paragraph 6b(3), AR 635-212 for unsuitability. Reasons cited were the applicant's apathy and misconduct. Although no psychiatric examination was given, the applicant did receive a separation physical; however, it is not in the available records. There is a statement on DD Form 1289 (Prescription Form), dated 4 November 1971, from the medical officer in charge of the Mainz (Germany) Health Clinic stating that a separation physical examination was done on 5 October 1971 and was still valid.
On 8 November 1971, the battalion commander recommended approval with the issuance of a GD.
On 8 November 1971, the division commander approved the discharge and directed the issuance of a GD.
On 24 November 1971, the applicant was separated with a GD. He was credited with 1 year and 26 days of active federal service and he had no lost time. His DD Form 214 indicates he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal and the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Badge for the M-16 rifle.
There is evidence the applicant may have tried to apply to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), but the date is unknown because the reverse side of the form is missing. He submits this as an enclosure to his current application. A review of ADRB records failed to show that any hearing was ever conducted.
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 24 November 1971, the date of discharge. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 24 November 1974.
The application is dated 18 February 2002 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
__jns___ __inw___ __jam___ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2002069958 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020815 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19711124 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-212 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A43.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.4300 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006383
Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating soldiers from active duty, and the SPN codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unsuitability (character and behavior disorder). As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000989C070206
On 17 October 1969, the applicants unit commander recommended the applicants separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unsuitability (character and behavior disorder). The evidence of record confirms the applicant was separated under unsuitability (character and behavior disorder) provisions of the regulation in effect at the time. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000989C070206
On 17 October 1969, the applicant’s unit commander recommended the applicant’s separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unsuitability (character and behavior disorder). Under current regulations, members separated by reason of personality disorder (character and behavior disorder) must be issued an HD unless they have been convicted by a general court-martial or more than one SPCM. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017780
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) which was upgraded to a general discharge (GD), under the Department of Defense (DOD) Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP), be upgraded to honorable. A memorandum, dated 21 October 1971, Subject: Elimination Proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, shows that a board of officers was directed to investigate his case to determine if he should be discharged from the service. He applied to the Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005144C070205
On 20 September 1972, the applicant's commander recommended he be required to appear before a board of officers to determine whether he should be discharged for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) within that Board's 15-year statute of limitations. Richard T. Dunbar ______________________ CHAIRPERSON INDEX |CASE ID |AR20060005144 | |SUFFIX | | |RECON | | |DATE BOARDED |20061207...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070015338C080407
David R. Gallagher | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file. The separation authority could...
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 | CY2009 | 20090009929
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). There is no indication that the applicant ever petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15 year statute of limitations. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unsuitability (character and behavior disorder), as...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007677
The unit commander initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations Discharge Unfitness and Unsuitability), paragraph 6b(3) for unsuitability due to apathy, defective attitude, or inability to expend effort constructively. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021415
The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of his general discharge (GD) to an honorable. On 1 December 1971, the applicant's immediate commander notified him by memorandum that he was being recommended for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations) due to unsuitability for military service based on a lack of general adaptability and inability to learn. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at...