| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Yvonne J. Foskey | Analyst |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Ernest W. Lutz | Member | ||
| Mr. Larry C. Bergquist | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, the reason for her discharge be changed.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that she does not want her military records to reflect that she was discharged for psychiatric reasons. She claims that she was raped and beaten, which caused the problems she experienced that were interpreted to be psychological, but were instead medical. She provides facts and circumstances of the alleged rape in her enclosed self-authored statement and comments on how these issues were not addressed at the time of her discharge. The applicant claims that she was told to accept the discharge or she would eventually be separated for psychiatric reasons.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 13 February 1969, she enlisted into the Regular Army for 3 years. Her Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows that she successfully completed basic training at Fort McClellan, Alabama and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Sam Houston, Texas. Upon completion of AIT, she was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 91A (Medical Corpsman), and the highest rank she attained while on active duty was private first class/E-3 (PFC).
On 12 November 1969, while assigned to Fort Huachuca, Arizona, the applicant was referred to the Mental Hygiene Consultation Division for evaluation. The attending psychiatrist diagnosed her as having a schizoid personality with severe hysterical features. He also recommended that the applicant be processed for administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 due to her severe problems in adjusting to military life based on her diagnosed condition.
On 20 November 1969, the applicant was notified by her unit commander that action was being initiated to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unsuitability. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, and after being advised of the basis of the contemplated separation action and the effects she completed her election of rights. She elected to waive consideration of her case by a board of officers and representation by counsel. She also elected not to submit a statement of rebuttal in her own behalf.
On 28 November 1969, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge and directed that she receive an HD. On 22 December 1969, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The DD 214 issued to the applicant at the time of separation confirms that she completed 10 months and 10 days of creditable active military service.
The record gives no indication that the applicant requested an upgrade of or change to the reason to her discharge from the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15 year statue of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 6b provided the authority to separate members by reason of character and behavior disorder. A general or honorable discharge was authorized.
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 contention that the reason should have been based on medical reasons and not psychiatric reasons was carefully considered. However, there is no evidence of record and the applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to support this claim.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation in effect at the time. The applicant was properly evaluated by a psychiatrist and based on his diagnosis and recommendation, she was processed for separation.
3. The evidence further confirms that the applicant consulted with legal counsel and after being advised of the basis for her separation, she elected to waive her right to have her case considered by a board of officers and she chose not to submit a rebuttal statement in her own behalf. As a result, it is determined that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.
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
____CLG__ __EL___ __LB___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003090116 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003.10. |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1969/10/13 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR .635-212 . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076750C070215
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. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board reviewed the applicant's record of service which included two special court-martial convictions and 384 days lost.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091657C070212
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 7 October 1969, the appeal was denied and the punishment was ordered executed as presented. The request for the applicant's discharge submitted by command is not in the applicant's service personnel records; however, two endorsements related to the action are present.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066329C070402
The psychiatrist cleared the applicant for any administrative action and recommended separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. 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. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was separated from the service with an Honorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085489C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 25 October 1967, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for being AWOL from 3 August to 18 August 1967. The ADRB determined that he had been properly discharged and denied his application on 8 August 1973.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016516
On 8 June 1970, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness and directed the applicant receive a UD. There is no evidence of record to show that the applicant ever submitted a request to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. The record further shows that after being counseled on his rights, the applicant voluntarily elected to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003414C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that her general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD); that her rank be changed from private/E-1 (PV1) to private/E-2 (PV2) and that the Separation Program Number (SPN) 264 be deleted from her separation document (DD Form 214). The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant confirms that she was separated with a GD on 7 October 1970. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Codes), in effect at...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050015616C070206
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 August 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050015616 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 15 October 1970, the separation authority directed the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness and that he receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. After carefully...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004103997C070208
On 19 September 1967, the applicant received an under conditions other than honorable discharge and furnished with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate in accordance with Army Regulation 635-212. There is no evidence and the applicant has not provided evidence which shows that the commanding officer granted the applicant permission to return to her appointed place of duty at a time other than ordered. A review of the applicant's record of service shows that the applicant received one...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059110C070421
There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. It required retroactive application of revised policies, attitudes and changes in reviewing applications for upgrades of discharges based on personality disorders. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076789C070215
On 18 September 1968, the applicant’s commander submitted a request to have the applicant rehabilitatively transferred to another unit. The applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to discharge the applicant from the service for unsuitability due to a character and behavior disorder, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, on 30 April 1969. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was...