| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deyon D. Battle | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Frank C. Jones | Member | ||
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That during his second enlistment, a warrant officer who had no jurisdiction over his unit entered the headquarters and ordered a few of the soldiers to clean up a break area reserved for officers. He states that his military occupational specialty was petroleum supply specialist and that he considered being ordered to clean up a break area to be racist and insulting. He states that out of 15 personnel in the unit, only three individuals were black. He states that the incident caused him severe mental and spiritual distress and he repeatedly asked his company commander to discharge him from active duty. He concludes by stating that he was a good soldier and that he had intended to make serving in the Army a career.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
After being inducted into the Army on 22 August 1968 and completing 1 year, 11 months and 22 days of total active service, he reentered in the Army on 23 January 1979, in the pay grade of E-3. He successfully completed his training as a petroleum supply specialist and he was promoted to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 November 1979.
The applicant was counseled on five separate occasions between 10 January 1980 and 21 May 1980, for failing to pass his driver's test; two incidents of being late to his place of duty, at which time he refused to pull extra duty; failing to get his haircut after being told to do so; and failing to assist the other soldiers in cleaning the barracks.
On 22 April 1980, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation. The attending physician noted his behavior to be normal; that he was fully alert; that he was fully oriented; that his thinking process was clear; that this thought content was normal; and that his memory was good. The physician determined that he had the mental capacity to understand and to participate in court-martial proceedings.
On 10 June 1980, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for disobeying a lawful order and for failure to go to his appointed place of duty. His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade, a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.
On 27 June 1980, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsuitability, based on apathy, defective attitude, and inability to expand efforts
constructively. The commander cited his failure to respond to counseling, his attitude, his duty performance and his personal conduct as a basis for the recommendation for discharge. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and after consulting with counsel, he waived his rights and he opted not to appear before a board of officers or to submit a statement in his own behalf.
The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on15 July 1980. Accordingly, on 22 July 1980, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsuitability, based on apathy, defective attitude, and inability to expand efforts constructively. He had completed 3 years, 5 months and18 days of total active service and he was furnished a General Discharge Certificate.
There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant 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 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13, then in effect, provided the policy and outlined the procedures for separating individuals for unsuitability, and provided, in pertinent part, that commanders would separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander’s judgment, the member would not develop sufficiently to participate in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.
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 applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
3. The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions. However, there is no evidence in the available records to demonstrate that the applicant was the victim of racial prejudice. The record does show that he was counseled on numerous occasions and he had NJP imposed against him as a result of his acts of indiscipline and a general discharge was more than appropriate as his service was not totally honorable.
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
__fcj____ __bje____ ___rvo __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003088658 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/09/04 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1980/07/22 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, CH 13 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | 547 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 560 | 144.4300/APATHY |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | CY2008 | 20080012981
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests, in effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be changed to a medical discharge. 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.
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 | CY2008 | 20080017368
The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. The applicant's records do not show any significant achievements/accomplishments during this period of military service. On 6 August 1982, the applicants immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with paragraph 13-4c of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007304
On 1 December 1981, his unit commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) for unsuitability due to apathy. The evidence of record shows that the SPD Code "JMJ" was the correct SPD code assigned to an enlisted Soldier separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-4c. The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to support his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018231
The applicant states: * he was found unfit to perform and continue his military service because of physical disability due to three hernia injuries * his multiple injuries interfered with his ability to perform his job requirements * the derogatory narrative reason for separation and codes on his DD Form 214 misconstrues the real reason for his separation * he was instead chaptered out for motivational problems and/or a defective attitude when the real reason should have been his chronic...
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 | 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 | 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 | CY2013 | 20130019506
The applicant requests the following: * an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge * correction of item 12b (Separation Date This Period) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) 2. He was advised by his commander that his discharge would be fully upgraded to honorable six months after his discharge. On 27 May 1980, the applicants company commander initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200...