Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
Ms. Joyce A. Wright | Analyst |
Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | |
Ms. Margaret V. Thompson | Member | |
Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded. He states that he served in Vietnam for one year and returned to the US; however, he was not provided the opportunity to take leave. He also states that he has numerous medical conditions that are secondary to his exposure to Agent Orange and other herbicides used in Vietnam. In support of his application, he submits two letters from his former employers, copy of his Veterans Administration (VA) Rating Decision, dated 5 November 2002, and a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge), dated 26 February 1968.
COUNSEL CONTENDS: American Legion, as counsel for the applicant, states that the applicant's discharge was too harsh and that it is an injustice for the applicant to continue suffering from the resulting consequences 35 years later. He received four special courts-martial and was later discharged. He submitted statements from his former employer that attested to his dependable and honest service. Counsel also states that the applicant's letter from the VA considered his first period of service and not his second period of service, which he served in Vietnam and was separated under conditions other than honorable. He applied for benefits for a service-connected disability, which were caused by exposure to herbicides. The VA would not consider his second period of service for benefits due to his discharge being characterized as under other than honorable conditions. Counsel further states that the Board’s attention is invited to the applicant’s DD Form 149 and attached statements and that the applicant has clearly pointed out the errors and injustices that occurred in his case. Counsel requested that the Board’s final decision reflect sound, equitable principles consistent in law, regulation, policy, and discretion.
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 he enlisted on 28 June 1963. He continued to serve until he was honorably discharged on 11 July 1965, in order to reenlist. He reenlisted on 12 July 1965. He served in Vietnam from 6 May 1966 to 5 May 1967.
Between 21 February and 6 September 1966, he received nonjudicial punishment on three occasions under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being drunk, for wrongfully engaging in a fight, for being disorderly, and for failure to go to his appointed place of duty. His punishments consisted of forfeitures of pay and extra duty.
He was convicted by four special courts-martial of wrongfully and willfully discharging a firearm, of violation of a lawful general regulation; of AWOL from 1 to 21 August 1967 (21 days) and from 21 December 1967 to 17 January 1968 (15 days). His sentences consisted of forfeitures of pay, confinement at hard labor, and a reduction to the pay grade of E-1.
The applicant was in civil confinement from 22 August to 21 September 1967 for public drunkenness.
On 26 October 1967, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-212, for unfitness. After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 26 October 1967, the applicant underwent a mental evaluation which determined that he had no psychiatric diseases, was mentally responsible, could distinguish right from wrong, and that he possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative or judicial proceedings.
On 10 January 1968, the applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness. He based his recommendation on the applicant's frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.
On 16 February 1968, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge. The applicant was discharged on 26 February 1968. He had a total of 3 years, 11 months, and 5 days of creditable service and had 264 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
The applicant provided a copy of a VA Rating Decision, dated 5 November 2002. The rating decision denied his claim for several medical conditions addressed by the applicant. His second period of service was not addressed due to his character of separation under conditions other than honorable that prevented him from obtaining VA benefits. The applicant’s medical records are unavailable for review by this Board.
The two letters provided by the applicant's former employers attest to his dependable and honest service.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 6a(1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.
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 26 February 1968, the date of separation. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 26 February 1971.
The Board has noted the applicant and counsel's contentions. The evidence of record shows that he served in Vietnam for one year and was seen by the VA who denied his claim for several medical conditions.
The application is dated 20 November 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.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__rw___ ___mt__ __mm___ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
CASE ID | AR2002082971 |
SUFFIX | |
RECON | |
DATE BOARDED | 20030930 |
TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19680226 |
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR .635-212 |
DISCHARGE REASON | |
BOARD DECISION | DENY |
REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
ISSUES 1. | 189 |
2. | |
3. | |
4. | |
5. | |
6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012126
This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants 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 4 March 1969, the applicant's commander recommended that, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations, Discharge, Unfitness and Unsuitability), the applicant be required to appear before a board of officers to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019910
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the period ending 26 November 1968 to show: a. his service is honorable in lieu of undesirable and the reason for discharge was hardship rather than unfitness and b. his service in the Republic of Vietnam and all awards he is entitled to receive, to include the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008677
On 3 October 1969, after personally considering the evidence, the convening authority directed that the applicant be discharged with an undesirable discharge for unfitness under the provision of Army Regulation 635-212. As a result of the extensive research conducted by the medical community and the relatively recent issuance of revised criteria regarding the causes, diagnosis and treatment of PTSD the Department of Defense (DoD) acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008387
However, the board determined that the reason and authority for his discharge should be changed from Army Regulation 635-212 to Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-33b(2) misconduct, an established pattern for shirking. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. The records show the applicant was 21 years and 4 months of age at the time of...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02383
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02383 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: __________________ _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, be corrected to reflect his service in Vietnam. In this respect, we note there was no entry on the DD Form 214, issued at the time of his 1973...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005994
The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be changed to a medical discharge. Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 7, physical profiling, provides that the basic purpose of the physical profile serial system is to provide an index to the overall functional capacity of an individual and is used to assist the unit commander and personnel officer in their determination of what duty assignments the individual is capable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606170C070209
On 9 April 1968, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness with a discharge UOTHC. On 26 March 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicants request for an upgrade of his discharge. In consideration of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and in recognition of his more than 2 years, of good service, it would be unjust to consider his honorable discharge of 8 May 1963, as other than a complete and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007277
On 26 March 1969, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unfitness and directed the applicant be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 10 August 1978, the Army Discharge Review Board re-reviewed the applicants discharge as required by Public Law 95-126. This program, known as the DOD SDRP, required, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, that a discharge upgrade to either...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018479
In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged UOTHC and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150004025
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members...