| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | ||
| Mr. Lawrence Foster | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD), and that the reason for his discharge be changed to medical.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, members of his chain of command in two separate units hated him based on his race. He also claims that during his service, he experienced serious medical problems related to his feet and was required to wear shower shoes for 18 months.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He served on active duty from 12 January 1966 through 15 January 1969, at which time he was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD), by reason of expiration of term of service (ETS).
The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant upon his separation on 15 January 1969 shows that was trained and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 43E (Parachute Rigger). This document also confirms that he completed a total of 3 years of active military service, that he served overseas in Europe for 10 months and 26 days, and that during this period of service he earned the Parachute Badge and National Defense Service Medal (NDSM).
On 23 September 1970, the applicant reentered active duty on the enlistment under review. His Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows that immediately after his reenlistment, he was assigned to Fort Kobbe, Panama Canal Zone, where he arrived for duty on 17 October 1970. During this assignment, he served in four different units as a result of receiving three separate rehabilitative reassignments. The conduct and efficiency ratings he received from these units were all unsatisfactory.
The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition. However, it does reveal a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on
1 September 1971, for disobeying the lawful order of a superior commissioned officer. In addition, on 2 July 1971, he was convicted by a special court-martial of wrongfully wearing the improper insignia on his uniform.
On 25 January 1972, the unit commander recommended that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Department of the Army (DA) Message (MSG) 2421102Z (Qualitative Management). The unit commander stated that the action was being taken because the applicant had served in the grade of
E-2 since 7 September 1971, and had been denied promotion as of 7 January 1972.
The unit commander also indicated that the applicant admitted that he did not believe he able to perform his duties in a military manner, and could not perform as a professional soldier. The unit commander further explained that the applicant had been reassigned to four different units during his tour in the command for rehabilitation purposes; however, these rehabilitative measures failed.
On 4 February 1972, the separation authority approved the unit commander’s request for the applicant’s discharge, and directed that the applicant receive a GD. On 11 February 1972, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The applicant’s record contains no indication that he suffered from a medically disqualifying condition that rendered him unfit for further service at the time of his discharge.
On 29 August 1978, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge after determining that both the characterization and reason for his discharge were proper and equitable.
DA Message DAPE-MPP 242110Z Sep 71, in effect at the time, contained the Army policy that authorized the separation of enlisted personnel for failure to demonstrate adequate potential for promotion advancement.
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 Board notes the applicant’s contentions that members of his chain of command in two different units hated him based on his race, and that at the time of his discharge he suffered from a medical condition that should have resulted in his receiving a medical discharge. However, it finds insufficient evidence to support these claims.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with the Army policy in effect at the time. Lacking independent evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met, and that the applicant’s rights were fully protecting throughout his separation processing.
3. The Board takes any allegation of racial bias seriously, and would never let stand an action that was the result of discrimination. However, the Board finds no evidence in this case that supports the applicant’s allegation that racial prejudice played a part in his discharge. Further, there is no evidence showing that the applicant suffered from a disqualifying medical condition that would have warranted his being processed for separation through medical channels.
4. 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.
5. 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
__LF__ _WTM__ __LE__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003084111 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/06/DD |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1972/02/11 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | DA Msg 2421102Z Sep 71 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Failure to Demonstrate Potential for Prom |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020829
This lost time is recorded in different locations as either AWOL or military confinement; the specifics are not of record. The record does not contain and the applicant has not provided any evidence that he "suffered severely" from a race riot at Fort Riley on 4 July 1970. The record does not contain and the applicant has not provided any evidence that his discharge was the result of racial discrimination or that race was a factor in either the decision to discharge him or the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010727C070208
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general discharge (GD) as originally issued. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The applicant's allegations pertinent to his psychiatric evaluation, the presentation of a GD to his commander, which he torn up, that his commander's attitude was racially prejudiced, and that racial...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015618
In support of her previous application, she provided an e-mail from HRC, dated 1 February 2012, stating HRC records showed she had been considered but not selected for promotion to MSG by the 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 MSG PSB's. In support of her previous application, she provided several statements regarding her complaints and documents related to outcomes of various investigations by several different Army agencies, including command and Department of the Army Headquarters (HQDA)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070013665
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 April 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070013665 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. DA Form 2496, dated 16 February 1972, shows that the applicant's commander requested that he be transferred to another unit for the purpose of rehabilitation. There is no documentary evidence in the applicant's record...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019371
There is no record the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, provides the Secretaries of the Military Departments with authority to retire or discharge a member if they find the member unfit to perform military duties because of physical disability. Service members who are determined to be unfit for duty due to disability are either separated from the military...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100028921
This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's 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. He was discharged on 5 October 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. _____________X____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078053C070215
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. On 30 April 1975, the applicant was advised by certified mail at the above address that he was being discharged from the United States Army for desertion with a UD. The Board notes the applicant's many post-service accomplishments, to include his educational, artistic, and community-service achievements and,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000770C070205
David K. Haasenritter | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show his race as Native American. The fact that he now wishes to honor only the Native American heritage is insufficient reason to warrant a correction of the records.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077928C070215
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his general discharge under the provision of Army Regulation 635-212 (Unsuitability) be changed to a medical discharge or retirement. His reporting date was established as 20 August 1972 and his departure date from Vietnam was scheduled in July 1972. According to the September 2001 Department of Veterans Affairs rating decision, provided by the applicant in support of his request to the Board, he was granted at 70 percent service connected disability...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004102487C070208
The applicant’s military record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 8 July 1971. On 23 June 1972, the unit commander formally counseled the applicant regarding his candidacy for separation under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) due to his erratic performance of duty and admitted use of hard drugs. The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.