Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011752C070208
Original file (20040011752C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           2 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040011752


      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.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William D. Powers             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Robert L. Duecaster           |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette R. McCants           |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, an upgrade of his uncharacterized discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he entered the Army in 1985 and
while in basic training he requested to be recycled due to a family
problem.  This request was denied and he was discharged.  He claims his
1985 discharge is incorrect and requests that it be changed.

3.  The applicant also claims that in 1988, he started the process to
reenlist in the Army.  He states that during this process, he used his time
to work with new recruits, and he was given permission to go to Fort Irwin
and attended school, which ultimately led to his getting his General
Education Development (GED) high school equivalency diploma.  He claims
that after 14 months of working with new recruits, he was offered only an
enlistment of six years as a cook.  He refused and explained everything he
had done to support recruiters, but was discharged by a major for no
reason.  He requests a full review of his records.  He further states that
this missing piece of information has prevented him from getting into the
Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department.

4.  The applicant provides a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214)
and a high school diploma in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 17 December 1985.  The application submitted in this case
is dated 17 November 2004.

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 limitations 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 record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 7 November 1985, and was assigned to Fort Leonard
Wood, Missouri to attend basic training.

4.  On 25 November 1985, the applicant underwent a mental health
evaluation.  The examining psychiatrist found the applicant was immature
and possessed an antisocial personality disorder.  He further concluded the
applicant was capable of distinguishing right from wrong and adhering to
the right.  He also found the applicant was responsible for his actions and
possessed the mental and emotional capacity to understand and participate
in a board, or other legal proceedings.  The psychiatrist recommended the
applicant be administratively separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-
13, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of personality disorder.

5.  On 5 December 1985, the applicant’s unit commander notified him that he
was contemplating action to separate him under the provisions of chapter 5,
Army Regulation 635-200 based on his personality disorder.

6.  On 5 December 1985, the applicant was advised of the basis for the
contemplated separation action, its effects and of the rights available to
him.  He completed a statement in which he elected not to submit statements
in his own behalf and he waived his right to consult counsel.

7.  On 13 December 1985, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
separation and directed that the applicant be issued an entry level status
(ELS) separation.  On 17 December 1985, the applicant was discharged
accordingly.

8.  The DD Form 214 he was issued upon his discharge confirms he was
separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-3, Army Regulation 635-200,
by reason of personality disorder, and that his service was uncharacterized
based on his ELS.  The separation document confirms he completed a total of
1 month and 11 days of active military service and that he received no
awards or decorations during his active duty tenure.  The applicant
authenticated this document with his signature in Item 21 (Signature of
Member Being Separated).

9.  The applicant’s record contains no information regarding his
reenlistment processing in 1988, and the applicant has not provided any
documentary evidence on this issue.

10.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to Army Discharge
Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade or change of reason for his 1985
discharge within the ADRB’s 15 year statute of limitations.
11.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 3 contains policy pertaining to
the characterization of service.  Paragraph 3-9 contains guidance on ELS
separations.  It states, in pertinent part, that service will be
uncharacterized for Soldiers in an ELS.  This status is applicable to
Soldiers who have less than 181 days of continuous active military service.


12.  Paragraph 5-13 of the separations regulation provides that a Soldier
may be separated for personality disorder, not amounting to disability,
which interferes with assignment to or performance of duty. The regulation
requires that the condition is a deeply ingrained maladaptive pattern of
behavior of long duration that interferes with the Soldiers ability to
perform duty.  It further specifies that the service of Soldiers separated
under this provision will be characterized as honorable unless an ELS, in
which case it will be uncharacterized.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contentions regarding his 1988 reenlistment process and
discharge were carefully considered.  However, there are no official
military records regarding this process, and the applicant has failed to
provide any documentary evidence regarding this event.  Therefore, there is
insufficient evidence for the Board to render a decision on this matter.

2.  The applicant’s contention that his 1985 discharge was unjust was
carefully considered.  However, the evidence of record confirms he was
diagnosed with an antisocial personality disorder by competent medical
authority. Based on this diagnosis, his separation processing was
accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All
requirements of law and regulation were met, and the rights of the
applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

3.  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.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 17 December 1985.  Therefore, the time
for him to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired
on 16 December 1988.  He failed to 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
timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___WDP_  ___RLD _  ___JRM    DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate
the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board
determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis
for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




            ____William D. Powers____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040011752                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/08/02                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UNCHAR                                  |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1985/12/17                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR  635-200 C5                          |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Personality Disorder                    |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060006582

    Original file (20060006582.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that the Psychiatric Evaluation completed during his separation processing, dated 4 December 1992, be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The applicant provides the following documents in support of his application: Third-Party Statement; Psychiatric Evaluation, dated 4 December 1992; and Separation Memorandum, dated 8 December 1992. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000062C070206

    Original file (20050000062C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states, in effect, that he has been advised that under current regulations, the narrative reason for separation of members separated for fraudulent entry while in an ELS is listed as “Entry Level Separation”. Paragraph 7-23 of the enlisted separations regulation contains guidance on the type of discharge issued to Soldiers separated for fraudulent entry. However, by regulation, although all Soldiers separated under fraudulent entry provisions of the regulation who are in an...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110013284

    Original file (20110013284.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was separated by reason of ELS performance and conduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, and that his service was described as uncharacterized. There is no evidence indicating the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a change to his discharge within that board's 15-year...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2004 | AR2004104473

    Original file (AR2004104473.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 25 May 2000, the applicant was discharged. Further, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s discharge by reason of a personality disorder with service uncharacterized. Minority views: NONE PART VII - BOARD ACTION SECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified MR. RIVERA Case Reviewing Official PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATION SECTION A - DIRECTIVE NONE SECTION B - CERTIFICATION Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050017907C070206

    Original file (20050017907C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 July 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050017907 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 9 January 1987, the separation authorized approved the applicant's separation due to a personality disorder and directed that he receive an Uncharacterized Entry Level Separation (ELS). The DD Form 214 he was issued...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2002 | 2002066361

    Original file (2002066361.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 25 May 2000, the applicant was discharged. Applicant's issue(s) of propriety and/or equity: ( X ) Same as those listed on DD Form 293 and Part IV, Section A of this case report and directive. The Board, being convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2003 | AR2003096237

    Original file (AR2003096237.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Remarks: NONE SECTION B - Prior Service Data NONE Other discharge(s): Service From To Type Discharge PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW SECTION A-ANALYST’S ASSESSMENT l. Facts and Circumstances: a. Applicant's issue(s) of propriety and/or equity: ( X ) Same as those listed on DD Form 293 and Part IV, Section A of this case report and directive. Minority views: NONE PART VII - BOARD ACTION SECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified MR. RIVERA Case Reviewing...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017930

    Original file (20080017930.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 1 February 1985, the applicant’s unit commander informed the applicant of the intent to process him for separation under the provisions of Chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of entry level status (ELS) performance and conduct. The separation authority directed that the applicant be separated under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200 and that his service be uncharacterized based on his ELS. Chapter 11 of the separations regulation provides for the separation...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9611201C070209

    Original file (9611201C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s unit commander initiated action to administratively separate the applicant under the provisions of paragraph 5-13, Army Regulation 635-200 for personality disorder. He did not submit any statements and on 10 November 1988 the separation action was approved. In 1996 the Army Discharge Review Board unanimously denied his request to change the reason for his administrative separation.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024824

    Original file (20110024824.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no evidence indicating the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a change to his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The evidence of record confirms that separation action was initiated against the applicant while he was in an ELS prior to completing 180 days of continuous active military service.