| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. G. E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Ms. Margaret V. Thompson | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded to general or honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, he was told that his discharge would automatically be upgraded. He also states that he should never have been inducted because he has only one kidney. He reports that he reported it when he took his induction medical examination but was told that it was okay. He submits a 17 April 2001 medical report showing a congenital absence of the left kidney.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant entered active duty on 26 April 1971. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and approximately 3 months of service without a discreditable incident of record.
All three pertinent forms completed at the time of his entry onto active duty, DD Form 47 (Report of Induction), Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination), and Standard Form 89 (Report of Medical History) show that no defects or complaints related to his kidneys were reported or found.
The applicant's record shows that he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, on six separate occasions as follows:
a. 7 September 1971, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 16 August 1971 through 6 September 1971;
b. 10 December 1971, for operating a privately owned vehicle on base without a valid state license;
c. 19 January 1972, for being absent from his appointed place of duty;
d. 10 February 1972, for being AWOL 3 through 6 February 1972;
e. 5 June 1972, for being absent from appointed place of duty; and
f. 5 July 1972, for being AWOL 3 and 4 July 1972.
The applicant's medical records show no complaints of problems that might relate to or notations for concerns about kidneys. There is no indication that the applicant was afforded any tests to show he had a congenital absence of or nonfunctioning kidney.
The applicant's discharge medical examination, conducted 11 July 1972, showed no defects or diseases related to his kidneys reported or found.
On 14 August 1972, the applicant's company commander initiated discharge action under Army Regulation 635-212, paragraph 6a(1) & (4) for unfitness due to frequent acts of a discreditable nature. In addition to the NJPs cited above, the company commander also documented 14 negative counseling statements for diverse reasons including, but not limited to, AWOL, illegal drug use, living off post without permission, shirking his duties, and discreditable involvement with civil authorities. He recommended that the applicant be discharged with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
After consulting with a military counsel, the applicant waived his right to have his case reviewed by a board of officers, to appear in person or be represented by counsel before a board of officers, or to submit a statement on his own behalf. He acknowledged that he was advised that he could expect to face substantial prejudice in the event that he were discharged with a general discharge and that he would be deprived of many or all Army and Department of Veterans Affairs benefits if he received an under other than honorable conditions discharge.
The discharge authority approved the applicant's separation for unfitness and directed that he receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
The applicant was discharged on 24 August 1972. He was shown to have 1 year, 3 months and 1 day of creditable service with 28 days lost due to AWOL.
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 6 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that an individual was subject to separation for unfitness because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities and/or an established pattern of shirking. When separation for unfitness was warranted, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.
Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 (Standards for Discharge Review) specifically states that no factors should be established that require automatic change or denial of a change to any discharge.
The Army does not, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. When an applicant submits a request to change a discharge, each case is decided on its own merits. Change may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge was in error and/or unjust.
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 to support the applicant's contention that he notified the military that he had only one functioning kidney.
2. The Army does not, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. When an applicant submits a request to change a discharge, each case is decided on its own merits. Change may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge was in error and/or unjust.
3. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The applicant demonstrated the capacity to serve by completion of initial training and approximately three months of service without a discreditable incident of record. Therefore the Board finds that the character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
4. 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.
| CASE ID | AR2002070798 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020808 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.9223 |
| 2. | 144.9410 |
| 3. | 144.9905 |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080009615
The applicant states he was told that his discharge would be upgraded 6 months from the date of his discharge. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits an application to either the Army Discharge Review Board or the ABCMR requesting change in discharge. Based on the foregoing, there is insufficient basis to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's discharge to honorable or under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004558
The applicant requests an upgrade of his "dishonorable discharge" (i.e., his undesirable discharge) to a general discharge. The applicant did not provide any evidence. This regulation also prescribed that an undesirable discharge was normally issued unless the particular circumstances warranted a general or an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016064
After reenlisting he served in Vietnam from 1 January 1969 to 6 January 1970. The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 August 1966. Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Separations) provides in: a. Paragraph 3-7a, an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080009437
The applicant's military service records contain a DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, Separation Program Number (SPN) 386, with service characterized as under other than honorable conditions, and issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, effective 8 February 1972. This document also shows that the applicant was issued a DD Form 258A (Undesirable Discharge Certificate). The applicant contends, in effect, that his undesirable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088796C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. On 29 August 1972 the applicant's commander initiated action to administratively separate the applicant from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000711
The separation authority's approval memorandum is not available for review; however, his records contain discharge orders and a duly-constituted DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 3 November 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unfitness with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic policy for the separation of enlisted personnel. Army Regulation 635-200,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012919
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The unit commander indicated the action was based on the applicant's record of AWOL and advised the applicant of his rights. On 12 June 1972, the separation authority approved the separation action and directed that the applicant be discharged for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, and that he be furnished an UD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004158
On 11 January 1972, the applicant's unit commander notified him that action was being initiated to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations Discharge Unfitness and Unsuitability) for unfitness because of his unauthorized possession of marijuana. On 22 May 1972, the applicant was discharged accordingly. On 11 September 1973, the Army Discharge Review Board, after careful consideration of his military records and all other available evidence,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007748
On 10 April 1972, the separation approval authority waived further rehabilitation requirements and approved that the applicant be discharged with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for frequent incidents of a discreditable nature.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100001061
The applicant states he was discharged because he could not get along with an officer and that his service was honorable up until the last few months. The applicant's request that his undesirable discharge should be upgraded was carefully considered; however, there is insufficient evidence to grant relief. However, his record contains a properly-constituted DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 30 May 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unfitness with an...