| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Antoinette Farley | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Lana E. McGlynn | Member | |
| Mr. Larry C. Bergquist | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions be changed to a medical discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was told he would receive a medical discharge, under honorable conditions. He states, he was placed in a six month leave status to recuperate and was supposed to report back to duty. He further states, his leave was based on being beat up on base at Fort Lewis, Washington. He contends that another (cook) soldier came into his day room and choked him. He adds, that he was given a rating of 6A and would not have to go back through basic training again. He states, that he was also told if he chose not to return, he would be given a medical discharge, under honorable conditions. He adds he did not report back.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records are incomplete.
The applicant was inducted into the Army on 23 May 1969. His DA Form
20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he completed basic combat training
and was transferred to Fort Lewis, Washington for advanced individual training (AIT). On 17 September 1969, he completed AIT and was awarded military occupational specialty 63A10 (Mechanical Maintenance Helper) and assigned to duty.
On 14 January 1970, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of failing
to go to his appointed place of duty, wrongfully communicating a threat to a fellow soldier and being absent without leave (AWOL) from 29 to 30 December 1969 and from 2 to 5 January 1970. His sentence included reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and confinement at hard labor for 30 days, suspended for 90 days.
On 6 May 1970, the applicant’s unit commander initiated action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unsuitability with a general discharge, under honorable conditions. The reason for his proposed action was due to the applicant’s inability to adjust to military life. The applicant was advised of his rights, consulted with legal counsel, and was informed of the impact of a less than fully honorable discharge. He elected to make a statement in his own behalf.
The applicant stated, in his accompanying letter, that his time in the Army
and at Fort Lewis, Washington, was one of the worst experiences of his life. He adds, he did work hard, but was treated as if he was still in basic training. He contends others always provided the opinion that he was goofing off. He adds that he tried to get along with everyone, but admits to losing his cool, under the circumstances, as would anyone who had that much pressure built up.
On 5 May 1970, the applicant underwent a medical examination that gave him a physical profile of 111111 and cleared him for separation.
An 13 May 1970, the applicant’s psychiatric examination produced a diagnosis of emotional immaturity reaction, moderate, chronic, as manifested by his inability to adjust to military life, low stress tolerance, tendency toward impulsive behavior and the use of poor judgment. The report found no disqualifying mental or physical defects requiring processing through medical channels. The applicant was considered to be able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right. He could understand and participate in separation processing and any further rehabilitation was expected to be ineffective. Administrative separation was recommended.
On 25 May 1970, his intermediate commander concurred with the recommendation for a GD, under honorable conditions. On 9 June 1970, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation, waived rehabilitation requirements and directed that he be issued a GD Certificate.
On 16 June 1970, the applicant was separated with an GD under honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unsuitability. He had 1 year and 20 days of creditable service. The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-2.
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. The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members were subject to separation for unsuitability for inaptitude, character and behavior disorders, apathy (lack of appropriate interest), defective attitudes,
and inability to expend effort constructively, alcoholism, and enuresis. A general under honorable conditions characterization of service was normally appropriate.
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 separation was accomplished in compliance with regulations applicable at the time with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. The Board found that the applicant's contention that his command gave him the option of returning to his command after being authorized leave for 60 days is unsupported. The Board notes that the applicant’s admission that he was supposed to report back to his unit clearly establishes that his command did not approve or issue discharge orders prior to him going on leave.
3. The Board, also notes that there is no evidence in the applicant’s military records, nor does he provide any evidence that he was suffering from a medical condition which rendered him unfit to remain on active duty.
4. Therefore, the Board finds, that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
5. 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.
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
____FNE ___LEM _ ___LCB _ DENY APPLICATION
INDEX
| CASE ID | AR2003083412 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/05/06 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | US W/GD UNDER HON CONDITIONS |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1980.06.16 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | 635-212 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | NON-ADJUST MIL LIFE |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | DIRECTOR |
| ISSUES 1. | AR144.4000 |
| 2. | AR144.0135 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100029108
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to a fully honorable discharge. On 9 September 1969, the unit chaplain indicated he consulted with the applicant and he believed the applicant was unsuitable for military service due to his inability to adjust to the military life. When separation for unsuitability was warranted, an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100000090
He also waived his right for consideration of his case by a board of officers, personal appearance before a board of officers and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was separated under the unsuitability (character and behavior disorder) provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing he received an honorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002572
Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 15 December 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability. At the time the applicant underwent his separation physical/medical examination, he indicated that he had foot and back problems. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019336
On 11 May 1960, having determined that the applicant was unsuitable for further military service, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 by reason of unsuitability and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate. The applicant was accordingly discharged on 26 January 1970. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: * showing the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074847C070403
On 20 November 1970, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability due to character and behavior disorders. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions (a general discharge) on 3 December 1970 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability due to character and behavior disorders. When separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001414
On 24 June 1970, his acting commander informed him of the initiation of proceedings to discharge him under the provisions Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities. On 6 July 1970, the applicant received a letter of reprimand from his company commander for being in a physical condition such that he could not perform his normal duties. On 14 July 1970, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058467C070421
The Board considered the following evidence: There is no record of punishment. On 2 May 1972, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-2 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unsuitability with a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000768
On 11 September 1970, the applicant's unit commander recommended him for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unfitness. On 26 October 1970, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability and directed the applicant receive a GD. When separation for unsuitability was warranted, an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002693
The patient has been AWOL three times and has received seven Articles 15. On 17 July 1970, the applicant was separated with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability due to a character and behavior disorder. Therefore, in view of the foregoing the applicant's military service record should be corrected to show he was honorably discharged, effective 17 June 1970, under the extraordinary provisions of Department of the Army Memorandum, dated 8...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110022523
It was recommended the unit initiate separation action under Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability). When separation for unsuitability was warranted, an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record. However, his service record indicates he received four Article 15s for various offenses and was enrolled in an Amnesty Program for drug abuse where he failed to...