| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Member | |
| Ms. Shirley L. Powell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the reason for his discharge be changed from unsuitability to medical.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that at the time he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, he was not informed that he was being discharged for unsuitability and did not discover that this was the case until he was recently denied additional benefits by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). He goes on to state that he should have been discharged for medical reasons (physical disability) because he has been receiving VA benefits rated at 40%. He continues by stating that his discharge should have been automatically upgraded and it is way past time for this error to be corrected. He also states that he currently has a terminal illness and if he has time he plans to bring suit against the Army, the VA and the Government.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in Ashland, Kentucky, on 6 March 1962 for a period of 3 years and training as a field artilleryman. He completed his basic training at Fort Chaffee, Arkansas and was transferred to Fort Sill, Oklahoma, on 28 May 1962, to undergo his advanced individual training (AIT). He completed his AIT and was transferred to Fort Benning, Georgia, on 20 July 1962.
The applicant went absent without leave on 10 October 1962 and remained absent until he was apprehended by civil authorities in Knoxville, Tennessee on 26 October 1962, when he was returned to military authorities.
He again went AWOL on 1 December 1962 and remained absent until he surrendered to military authorities at Fort Hayes, Ohio on 21 January 1963.
The applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation on 4 February 1963. He was deemed mentally able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.
On 13 February 1963, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability. He cited as the basis for his recommendation that the applicant informed him that he had joined the Army to get away from home and that he only went AWOL in order to secure a discharge from the Army. He also cited the applicant's lost time and disciplinary record.
After consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged that he had been advised of his rights and elected to waive his rights to a hearing before a board of officers.
On 16 February 1963, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of being AWOL from 10 October to 26 October 1962 and from 1 December 1962 to 21 January 1963. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 1 month (suspended for 2 months), reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and a forfeiture of pay.
On 18 February 1963, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate for unsuitability.
Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 1 March 1963 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, for unsuitability. He had served 7 months and 25 days of total active service and had 124 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-209, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel by reason of unsuitability when it was determined that it was unlikely that an individual would develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a satisfactory soldier. An honorable or general discharge was authorized.
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 applicable regulations with no violations or procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
3. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.
4. The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board. However, given his otherwise undistinguished record of service during a short period of time and the lack of evidence to support his contentions, there is no basis to change either the reason or characterization of his discharge. The evidence of record clearly shows that he was notified that he was being discharged for unsuitability and he acknowledged such with his signature.
5. While it is unfortunate that the applicant is being denied additional VA benefits, this Board does not have jurisdiction over that agency nor does it administer any of their programs.
6. 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
___slp___ __sac___ ___tmc__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002078051 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/03/11 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1963/03/01 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-209 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Unsuit |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 547 | 144.4000/a40.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090771C070212
The applicant was discharged on 27 August 1963. However, the evidence of record shows that prior to the applicant's discharge in August 1963, competent medical authority determined that he was then medically qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111111. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016715
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 February 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090016715 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090649C070212
There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. However, his post-service conduct and the fact that he got an honorable discharge prior to his reenlistment is an insufficient basis to grant the relief requested as the period of service in question was not totally honorable. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011266C070208
The applicant requests that his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge. On 23 January 1963, the appropriate separation authority approved the discharge request and directed the issuance of a general discharge. That determination was well within the separation’s authority at that time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018220
There is no evidence to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board, within its 15-year statute of limitations, for a discharge upgrade. The applicant's military records show that a Medical Corps officer examined the applicant and found evidence of a character and behavior disorder (now called personality disorder). As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. voiding the general discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062664C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 2 August 1962, he was convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of absent without leave (AWOL) and violation of a lawful regulation, to wit: “Off Limits.” He was sentenced to reduction to pay grade E-1, hard labor without confinement for 30 days and forfeiture of pay. A psychiatric evaluation dated 11 December 1962, states the applicant’s military adjustment as reported...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057502C070420
His First Sergeant told him that if he took the Article 15 the First Sergeant would give him back his rank in about a month. The applicant was not eligible for a medical discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40 as there was no evidence he could not perform his military duties. A “209” discharge was not a medical discharge; it, too, was an administrative discharge although for unsuitability rather than unfitness.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606824C070209
He recommended that the applicant be separated from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability. On 22 July 1963 the applicants commanding officer recommended that the applicant be discharged with an undesirable type discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness. He stated that he was recommending discharge under Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness instead of Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability as recommended by the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100267C070208
Department of the Army BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 1901 SOUTH BELL STREET 2ND FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22202-4508 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: JUNE 29, 2004 DOCKET NUMBER : AR2004100267 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080015995
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 December 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080015995 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-209 set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unsuitability. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to show that the applicant was improperly separated administratively under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 rather than medically under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40.