| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member | ||
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge from the United States Army Reserve (USAR) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he never should have been passed through basic combat training (BCT) because he was never able to run a mile, and his discharge should be upgraded because he has suffered from muscular dystrophy all his life. In support of his application, he provides medical treatment records and doctor’s statements regarding his post service treatment.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 24 May 1979, the applicant enlisted in the USAR for six years. In connection with this enlistment, he completed a Report of Medical History (SF 93) and underwent an enlistment physical examination.
The SF 93 on file, dated 24 May 1979, shows that the applicant certified that he was in good health. It also shows that he responded “No” in Item 11 (have you ever had or had you now), to each of the illnesses or conditions listed. He also responded “No” to question number 20 (have you ever had any illness or injury other than those already noted).
The Report of Medical Examination (SF 88) on file, dated 24 May 1979, confirms that the applicant underwent a complete medical enlistment examination on that date, and he was determined to be medically qualified for enlistment by competent medical authority.
The applicant successfully completed his initial active duty for training (IADT) on 29 March 1980. At that time, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 39K (Tactical Wire Operations Specialist), and he was returned to his USAR unit for duty. His record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition during his tenure of service in the USAR.
The record shows that the applicant failed to attend 15 unit drills between
1 October 1981 and 28 February 1982. On 23 March 1982, his unit commander forwarded a letter to him by certified mail that informed him that separation action was being initiated on him. In this letter, the unit commander advised the applicant of his rights in connection with the action, and informed him who his appointed legal counsel was. The applicant failed to reply to this notification.
On 3 May 1982, the applicant’s unit commander submitted a recommendation that he be separated from the USAR under the provisions of chapter 7, Army Regulation 135-178, by reason of unsatisfactory participation.
On 8 June 1982, the applicant’s separation was approved and the separation authority directed that he receive an UOTHC discharge under the provisions of paragraph 7-45, Army Regulation 135-178.
The applicant provides a case record from the University of Colorado Health Services Center, dated 16 August 1991, signed by a Professor of Neurology/
Co-Director, Neuromuscular Section. This document indicates that the applicant suffered from severe chronic myopathy and necrotic changes, consistent with dystrophy. He also provides an unsigned letter from an Instructor of Neurology, University of Colorado Hospital, dated 6 June 2002, which indicates that he has Becker’s muscular dystrophy, and had suffered from this condition all his life.
Army Regulation 135-178 sets the policies, standards, and for the orderly administrative separation of Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted soldiers for a variety of reasons. Chapter 7, in effect at the time, provided for the separation of USAR members for unsatisfactory performance. An UOTHC discharge was normally considered appropriate for members separated under this provision of the regulation.
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 contention that he should have never been allowed to pass BCT because he has never been able to run a mile, and that his discharge should be upgraded because he has suffered from muscular dystrophy all his life. However, it finds these factors do not provide an evidentiary basis to support the requested relief.
2. The evidence of record provides no indication that the applicant suffered from muscular dystrophy at the time of his enlistment. This is confirmed in the SF 93 certification made by the applicant during his enlistment processing that indicated that he suffered from no medically disqualifying condition. It is also supported by the results of his entrance physical examination, which revealed no medical condition, and in which he was medically cleared for enlistment by competent medical authority.
3. The earliest medical evidence provided by the applicant is dated almost
10 years subsequent to his discharge, and the latest is less than a year old. The Board does not question the validity of this evidence, but it finds it does not support a conclusion that his current medical condition contributed to the unsatisfactory performance that led to his discharge.
4. The Board also takes note of the fact that the applicant failed to raise his medical condition as an issued during his service tenure or as a mitigating factor for his non-participation in unit drills during his discharge processing.
5. The record also shows that the applicant’s discharge processing was conducted in accordance with the applicable regulation in effect at the
time. Lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the process.
6. 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.
7. 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
RKS__ __JM___ __JHL __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003086542 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/07/DD |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1985/10/03 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 135-178 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Unsatisfactory Participation. |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 360 | 144.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075963C070403
The record contains seven returned letters from the applicant’s USAR unit notifying him that he was being charged with either unexcused absences or being absent without leave (AWOL) from annual active duty training (AT). The first of these returned letters is for an unexcused absence of five drill periods, 10-12 April 1981. Further, it is not clear from the October 1982 memorandum whether the unit’s request was for evidence that the applicant had enlisted in the Navy or if it was for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070015670
The applicant's records further show that he was ordered to active duty training on 30 March 1979. Evidence of record shows that, upon completion of MOS training, the applicant was honorably relieved from active duty training in accordance with paragraph 5-15 of Army Regulation 635-200. The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that he was separated for medical reasons.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075494C070403
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 determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The board recommended that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091007C070212
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 determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008892
He and his commander signed this document wherein he stated: I, understand [that under the provisions of] [Army Regulation (AR)] 135-91 [Service Obligations, Methods of Fulfillment, Participation Requirements, and Enforcement Procedures] and AR 135-178 [Enlisted Administrative Separations], as an Unsatisfactory Participant in the USAR unit to which I am assigned, [I] have been informed that I may receive a General Discharge. His record contains a letter from his commander, dated 21 May...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070018309
On 12 December 1981, Headquarters, First United States Army, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, published Orders 240-42, relieving the applicant from his USAR unit of assignment for being an unsatisfactory participant, and assigning him to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training), effective 16 November 1981, under other than honorable conditions. On 13 April 1985, U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center, St. Louis, Missouri, published Orders Number D-04-907107, ordering the applicant discharged...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070001805
This document indicates the applicant was being considered for separation for misconduct. However, there is no evidence in the applicant's records or military medical documentation that shows he was unable to perform his military duties. In addition, evidence of record shows that United States Army Reserve Command Orders 186-061, dated 7 July 1992, discharged the applicant from the USAR under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-178 by reason of misconduct with a characterization of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070001595C071029
Further, the applicant's record shows that during her military service she was recognized with an AAM for her meritorious service between 2 June 1979 and 3 August 1981. Based on the original recommendation of the applicant's unit commander, and on her overall record of service, it would be appropriate to correct her record to show her 13 July 1982 transfer to the USAR Control Group was accomplished Under Honorable Conditions, and to show she was discharged on 30 August 1984, in the rank of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013087
The applicant states, in effect, that he honorably served in the military for 17 years, 11 months, and 15 days, and is requesting that his discharge be changed to a medical discharge or retirement based on injuries he sustained on 2 January 1999, while at work at his civilian job. The applicants record shows that he served in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) from 3 February 1980 through 31 August 1999. As a result, given he was not serving in the Selected Reserve at the time of his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010476
The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 22 March 1979 for 6 years. The applicant's record is void of the circumstances surrounding his unexcused absences; however, the Commander, Company A, 3rd Battalion, 18th Infantry notified the applicant by certified mail that the unit's records showed he had been absent from scheduled Unit Training Assemblies (UTA) on 2 August 1981, 13 December 1981, 22 and 23 May 1982, and 12 and 13 June 1982. As such, he was...