| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Carolyn Wade | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member | |
| Mr. Robert L. Duecaster | Member |
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of his discharge to an honorable or a medical discharge.
2. The applicant states that he was told by the [Staff] Judge Advocate General's Office that, upon his request, he would be given a medical discharge.
3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) for the period 13 September 1974 to 30 April 1975.
4. The applicant also provides a copy of radiographic report of an injury to his hip, dated 24 September 1974.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant is requesting correction of an error or injustice which occurred on 30 April 1975. The application submitted in this case is dated 9 May 2003.
2. Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of justice to do so. In this case, the ABCMR will conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.
3. The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 September 1974 for 3 years. The applicant completed basic combat training at Fort Ord, California and was assigned to Fort Belvoir, Virginia for advanced individual training.
4. On 14 January 1975, the applicant was referred to the Belvoir House Drug Abuse Program by his unit for evaluation of drug abuse. The applicant was evaluated by a psychiatric social worker who stated that it was evident that the applicant had been using drugs for an extended period of time. It was recommended that the applicant be admitted to the Belvoir House as an inpatient; however, he begged not to be admitted and was, instead, referred to Mental Hygiene for further evaluation. Mental Hygiene concurred with the diagnosis of the staff of the Belvoir House Program that the applicant needed long-term, intensive care of a nature not provided by the Army. It was recommended that his unit consider administrative separation and that he be given treatment by an outside agency such as a Veterans Administration Hospital, if so warranted.
5. On 27 February 1975, the applicant's unit commander recommended him for discharge from the service under the provisions of paragraph 13-5a(3)(b), Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of unfitness with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He stated that his reason for recommending discharge was the applicant's diagnosis of an inadequate personality, chronic, severe, with immaturity, impulsiveness, and poly drug abuse. He also stated that the applicant's lack of usefulness to the military made him more of a liability than an asset. The chain of command concurred with the recommendation.
6. On 10 March 1975, the applicant, having been advised of his rights by consulting counsel, waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.
7. On 28 March 1975, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's discharge with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. Accordingly, on 30 April 1975, the applicant was discharged with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was credited with 7 months and 20 days of active military service and no lost time. He was credited with the National Defense Service Medal as his only award.
8. Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 established the policy and prescribed the procedures for separating individuals for unfitness or unsuitability. Paragraph 13-5a provided for the separation of individuals determined to be unfit for further military service. A general or honorable discharge was normally considered appropriate for members separated for unfitness by reason of personal drug use/possession.
9. There is no evidence of record that the applicant was told by the [Staff] Judge Advocate General's Office that he would be given a medical discharge upon his request.
10. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) within its 15-year statute of limitations.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights. The type of discharge was commensurate with the applicant's overall record of service.
2. The evidence of record does not show that the applicant had a medical condition that required him to be discharged through medical channels and the Board did not find any basis for changing his discharge to a medical discharge.
3. The Board noted that the applicant’s chain of command tried to assist him in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing drug counseling and medical treatment for drug abuse; however, the applicant failed to respond appropriately.
4. The applicant, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, compromised the trust and confidence placed in a Soldier. The applicant, as a Soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's drug policies. By abusing illegal drugs, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.
5. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 30 April 1975; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 29 April 1978. However, the applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to file in this case.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__fne___ __aao___ __rld___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003091226 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20040302 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19750430 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, Chap 13. . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A40.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091713C070212
The applicant states that he was not physically fit to perform guard duty because he was under a limited duty profile. DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 11 November 1974, shows the applicant's duty status was changed from "Present for Duty" to "Civilian Confinement" effective 7 November 1974. There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007983
The applicant states that he was found unfit for continued service by reason of misconduct, specifically his failure to follow orders and drug dependency. On 28 March 1975, the separation authority waived the counseling and rehabilitative requirements but ordered a board of officer convened to determine whether the applicant should be separated for unfitness. It states that a service member may be separated when it is determined under the guidance in that the member is unqualified for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020681
On 26 March 1973, the applicant's commander initiated the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for unfitness due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature. The psychiatric recommended the applicant be administratively separated from the service. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087727C070212
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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. There is no evidence that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087942C070212
On 22 July 1975, the separation authority approved separation with a UD. He had completed 1 year, 2 months and 8 days of active military service. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2003087942SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20031104TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UD)DATE OF DISCHARGE19750724DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200, Chap 13DISCHARGE REASONA51.00BOARD DECISION(DENY)REVIEW AUTHORITYISSUES 1.144.50002.3.4.5.6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013839,
There is no indication he 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, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The discharge proceedings appear to have been conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and the character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059747C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 23 July 1974, a summary of the applicant’s behavior during confinement was provided to the separation authority.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088580C070403
The applicant is requesting correction of an error or injustice which occurred on 30 September 1976, the date his undesirable discharge (UD) was upgraded to a GD by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB). At the time of the applicant's separation, a UD or a GD was appropriate. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010084
On 29 April 1975, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15 for failing to go to his appointed place of duty. On 12 April 1976, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-5a(4), for unfitness an established pattern of shirking with issuance of an undesirable discharge characterized as under other than honorable conditions. There is no evidence of record which indicates the actions taken in his case were in error or unjust; therefore,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057478C070420
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: However, unsuitability and not misconduct, and more specifically this incident was not used as a basis for the separation action. The Board notes the applicant’s contentions that the purpose of his physical examination was not for separation, that his shot record was altered, and that the remark in regard to his incarceration for drug possession should be removed from his records but finds there is insufficient evidence to support...