| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Harry B. Oberg | Member | |
| Mr. Ronald J. Weaver | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was offered a general discharge because he could not complete his advanced individual training (AIT) and despite his requesting to take the tests over, he was not allowed.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on 5 September 1978, for a period of 3 years and training as a teletypewriter repairer. He completed his basic combat training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, and was transferred to Fort Gordon, Georgia, to undergo his AIT.
His records show that nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him in March 1979 for disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer to participate in police call. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay (suspended for 60 days), extra duty and restriction.
NJP was again imposed against him in May 1979 for failure to go to his place of duty. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.
The applicant was counseled by his platoon sergeant and commander on 22 and 24 May 1979 regarding his request to be discharged because he stated he had no desire to train, would do anything to get out of the Army and he did not care what kind of discharge he received.
His records also show that he failed to complete his original course of AIT and that he was recycled to two more different courses, which he failed to complete.
On 2 July 1979, the applicant was notified that action was being taken to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsuitability due to apathy, defective attitude or inability to expend effort constructively. The commander cited the applicant's failure to complete a course of AIT (three), his disciplinary record, his failure to respond to numerous counseling sessions, poor attitude, resentment towards authority, and his disruptive behavior as the basis for his recommendation.
After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 20 July 1979 and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.
Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 26 July 1979, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsuitability due to apathy, defective attitude or inability to expend effort constructively. He had served 10 months and 22 days of total active service and was still in a trainee status.
There is no indication in the available records to show that he 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 635-200, chapter 13, in effect at the time, established policy and provided guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel found to be unfit or unsuitable for further military service. An individual could be found unsuitable for various reasons that included apathy (lack of appropriate interest), defective attitudes, inability to expend effort constructively, inaptitude, personality disorder or homosexuality. An honorable or general discharge was required as warranted by the individual’s military record of service.
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. The applicant’s administrative discharge was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations in effect at the time with no indication of any procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights. Accordingly, the type of discharge and the reasons therefore were appropriate given the circumstances in this case.
2. The applicant was afforded numerous opportunities to succeed as a soldier and elected not to do so. Accordingly, the chain of command accommodated the applicant's desires to be discharged after all attempts at rehabilitation had failed. He was properly discharged under honorable conditions because his service did not rise to the level of a fully honorable discharge.
3. 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.
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.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__hbo___ __rjw ___ ___wtm__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002081079 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/04/17 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1979/07/26 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/CH13 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | UNSUIT |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 547 | 144.4000/A40.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012256
On 26 August 1981, the applicants immediate commander initiated a Bar to Enlistment/Reenlistment Certificate against the applicant citing his three instances of nonjudicial punishment and extensive history of counseling. This form further shows he completed 4 years and 9 months of creditable active military service. XXX _________________________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011228
On 22 February 1980, an official of the 573rd Personnel Service Company, Fort Bragg, NC, initiated a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) adjusting her enlistment grade from E-1 to E-3 effective 5 February 1979 (date of enlistment) in accordance with Army Regulation 601-280 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program). She was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action for unsuitability, the type of discharge she could receive and its effect on further enlistment or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074439C070403
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130001322
Consistent with the chain of command's recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of unsuitability (apathy, a lack of appropriate interest, a defective attitude, and inability to expend effort constructively) and directed the issuance of a general discharge under honorable conditions. The DD Form 214 he received shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016558
The applicant requests the narrative reason for separation be removed from his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). The regulation states the reason for discharge based on separation code "JMJ" is "unsuitability apathy, defective attitude or inability to expend effort constructively" and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-4c. The applicant's narrative reason for separation was administratively correct and in conformance with...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001055263C070420
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION : A Memorandum of Consideration is not available to reflect the basis for the denial of the applicant’s case on 19 May 1965. The psychiatrist recommended that the applicant be separated from the service under the appropriate administrative regulation. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001055263SUFFIXRECON19650519DATE BOARDED20010809TYPE OF DISCHARGE(GD) Army Discharge Review Board upgraded the applicant’s...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002083146C070215
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The current governing regulation states that an individual separated by reason of misconduct for commission of a serious offense (abuse of illegal drugs) would normally be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions. The Board reviewed the applicant's record of service which included three nonjudicial punishments...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069975C070402
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120003940
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The regulation stated that when separation for unsuitability was warranted, an honorable or general discharge was issued as warranted by the member's military record. ____________x_____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004125C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that the narrative reason for her separation be changed. The applicant states, in effect, that a military member raped her in her unit while in the field. In view of the facts of this case, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s record to show she was separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-3, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of Secretarial Authority.