RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 8 December 2005
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050003941
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 |
| |Ms. Joyce A. Wright | |Analyst |
The following members, a quorum, were present:
| |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | |Chairperson |
| |Mr. James B. Gunlicks | |Member |
| |Mr. Scott W. Faught | |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 that his general discharge (GD) be changed to
show that he was separated by reason of physical disability.
2. The applicant states that he spent time in a Veterans Administration
(VA) hospital, was diagnosed as paranoid, and had a nervous breakdown due
to his service in Vietnam.
3. The applicant provides no documentation in support of his application.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 18 July 1970, the date of his discharge. The application
submitted in this case is dated 8 March 2005.
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 military records show that he entered active duty (AD)
on 27 December 1968, as a cook (94B). He served in Vietnam from
28 February 1970 to 16 July 1970. He was promoted to private first class
(PFC/E-3) on 5 March 1970.
4. On 1 April 1969, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for appearing in an
unclean uniform on 30 March 1969. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture
of pay and 7 days restriction and extra duty.
5. He was convicted by two special courts-martial of being absent without
leave (AWOL). He was AWOL from 20 June to 28 July 1969 and from 18 August
to 11 September 1969. His sentences consisted of confinement at hard labor,
forfeitures of pay, and reduction to pay grade E-1.
6. Item 44 (Time Lost), of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record),
shows that he was AWOL from 11 to 15 May 1970 (6 days).
7. The applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation; however, it is
unavailable for review.
8. The applicant's medical records are also not available. There is no
indication that the applicant had medical or psychiatric issues or that he
was serving with any type of assignment limitations. Item 17 (Physical
Status) of the applicant's Form 20 shows he has a physical profile of P-1,
U-1, L-1, H-1, E-1, and S-1. He was given a Code A. Item 18
(Assignment Limitations), of the applicant's DA Form 20 is blank.
9. On 30 June 1970, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate
the applicant from the service under the provisions of AR 635-212, for
unsuitability. He based his recommendation on the applicant's apathy
toward the military service and character and behavior disorders manifested
by frequent periods of AWOL. After consulting with counsel, the applicant
waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
10. On 1 July 1970, the applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation
to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-212, for unsuitability.
11. On 16 July 1970, the separation authority approved the recommendation
for the applicant's discharge and directed that he be furnished a GD. He
was discharged on 18 July 1970. He had a total of 1 year, 6 months, and
22 days of creditable service and had 69 days of lost time due to AWOL on
his discharge date.
12. There is no evidence the applicant requested a separation medical
examination prior to his separation from AD and his medical records are
unavailable for review.
13. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge
Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of
limitations.
14. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. It stated, in
pertinent part, that individuals would be separated for unsuitability due
to aptitude, character and behavior disorders, apathy, alcoholism, or
enuresis and that the individual would be furnished an honorable or general
discharge.
15. Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army physical disability
evaluation system and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures
that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical
disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or
rating. It provides for medical evaluation boards, which are convened to
document a Soldier’s medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is
affected by the Soldier’s status. A decision is made as to the Soldier’s
medical qualifications for retention based on the criteria in AR 40-501,
chapter 3. If the medical evaluation board determines the Soldier does not
meet retention standards, the board will recommend referral of the Soldier
to a physical evaluation board.
16. Physical evaluation boards are established to evaluate all cases of
physical disability equitability for the Soldier and the Army. It is a
fact finding board to investigate the nature, cause, degree of severity,
and probable permanency of the disability of Soldiers who are referred to
the board; to evaluate the physical condition of the Soldier against the
physical requirements of the Soldier’s particular office, grade, rank or
rating; to provide a full and fair hearing for the Soldier; and to make
findings and recommendation to establish eligibility of a Soldier to be
separated or retired because of physical disability.
17. Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 7, physical profiling, provides that
the basic purpose of the physical profile serial system is to provide an
index to the overall functional capacity of an individual and is used to
assist the unit commander and personnel officer in their determination of
what duty assignments the individual is capable of performing, and if
reclassification action is warranted. Four numerical designations (1-4)
are used to reflect different levels of functional capacity in six factors
(PULHES): P-physical capacity or stamina, U-upper extremities, L-lower
extremities, H-hearing and ears, E-eyes, and S-psychiatric. Numerical
designator 1 under all factors indicates that an individual is considered
to possess a high level of medical fitness and, consequently, is medically
fit for any military assignment. Numerical designators 2 and 3 indicate
that an individual has a medical condition or physical defect which
requires certain restrictions in assignment within which the individual is
physically capable of performing military duty. The individual should
receive assignments commensurate with his or her functional capacity.
Numerical designator 4 indicates that an individual has one or more
medical conditions or physical defects of such severity that performance
of military duty must be drastically limited. The numerical designator 4
does not necessarily mean that the individual is unfit because of physical
disability as defined in Army Regulation 635-40.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's psychiatric evaluation is unavailable for review. His
medical records are also unavailable for review and there is no evidence to
show that he requested a separation medical examination from AD or that he
had been referred to medical channels to undergo processing for physical
disability reasons.
2. There is no evidence, and the applicant has provided no medical
evidence, to show that he spent time in a VA hospital either while he was
on AD or post service, and that he was diagnosed as paranoid and had a
nervous break down due to his Vietnam service. The evidence clearly shows
he was discharged under the provision of Army Regulation 635-212, for
unsuitability, and he received a GD.
3. Based on the evidence provided, the applicant is not entitled to an
upgrade of his GD or a change to the reason and authority for his discharge
to show that he was separated by reason of physical disability.
4. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 18 July 1970; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 17 July 1973. 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 timely file in this case.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
_JBG____ _RTD___ __SWF__ 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.
____Richard T. Dunbar_____
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
|CASE ID |AR20050003941 |
|SUFFIX | |
|RECON | |
|DATE BOARDED |20051208 |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE |GD |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE |19700718 |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY |AR 635-212 |
|DISCHARGE REASON | |
|BOARD DECISION |DENY |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
|ISSUES 1. |144 |
|2. | |
|3. | |
|4. | |
|5. | |
|6. | |
-----------------------
[pic]
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063822C070421
On 11 June 1969, the applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation to discharge the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unsuitability. In view of the foregoing, the general discharge issued to the applicant at the time of his separation is inconsistent with the standards for discharge for unsuitability which became effective in June 1976. Since these new standards retroactively authorized an honorable discharge in cases where soldiers...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003367C070208
His DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635- 212 by reason of unfitness with an undesirable discharge and with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. There is no medical evidence of record that shows the applicant had any illness or medical problem prior to his discharge on 21 September 1971. Evidence shows that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 04101078C070208
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 AUGUST 2004 DOCKET NUMBER: AR2004101078 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. 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. On 17 March 1970 the applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110009399
On 26 November 1969, the applicant's commander initiated a request to discharge the applicant for unsuitability under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability). There is no evidence that shows he was diagnosed with PTSD or any mental condition prior to his discharge sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels. Although the applicant contends he should have been given a medical discharge, the evidence of record...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001241
COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 25 March 1970, while in Vietnam, the applicant was evaluated by a psychiatrist. Since there is insufficient evidence of record to show that the applicant's medical condition was medically unfitting for retention at the time in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501, there was no basis for medical separation or retirement.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058525C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he was told by his counsel that he could benefit from a medical discharge. He had completed 9 months and 16 days of creditable active service and had 53 days of lost time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110022351
The commander cited: * the applicant's NJP and SPCM conviction * the applicant requested elimination * the applicant is immature and stated he enlisted to avoid reform school * the applicant is not worth the Army's time 7. Chapter 7 (Physical Profiling) of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) provides that the basic purpose of the physical profile serial system is to provide an index to the overall functional capacity of an individual and is used to assist the unit...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010794
The applicant's medical records are not available for review nor did the applicant provide evidence which shows that he suffered from an illness or an injury that rendered him unable to perform the duties required of his grade or military specialty or warranted his entry into the physical disability evaluation system. Subsequent to his separation, the ADRB determined the applicant was not equitably discharged and he was entitled to an honorable discharge under the provisions of Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050005165C070206
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 1 November 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050005165 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. The applicant served in Vietnam for the period 12 June 1968 through 10 July 1969. The medical officer recommended the applicant be administratively separated from the military under the provisions of Army Regulation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017330
Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) provides, in pertinent part, that disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to Soldiers whose service is interrupted and they can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the...