Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010188C080410
Original file (20060010188C080410.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        10 APRIL 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060010188


      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. Gerard W. Schwartz            |     |Acting Director      |
|     |                                  |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |                                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |                                  |     |Member               |
|     |                                  |     |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 records be corrected by upgrading his
discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he was diagnosed with a passive aggressive
personality by Army medical personnel.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the
United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), documents concerning his
discharge proceedings, a 22 March 2005 hearing examination, a 22 June 2005
summary concerning an examination conducted by the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) Agent Orange Registry, and three letters of recommendation in
support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 22 November 1967.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 14 July 2006.

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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 August 1965, for a
period of
3 years.  He served in Vietnam from 21 January 1966 to 27 January 1967.

4.  On 22 December 1965 the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP)
under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ), for being absent without leave from 15 December 1965 to 22 December
1965.  His punishment was a forfeiture of $10.00.

5.  On 5 October 1966, the applicant accepted NJP under the provisions of
Article 15, UCMJ, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 1 October 1966
to 4 October 1966.  His punishment included a reduction, forfeiture of pay
and restriction.
6.  On 15 June 1967, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial
of being AWOL from 12 March 1967 to 5 April 1967 and from 14 May 1967 to
21 May 1967.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 5 months
(suspended), forfeiture of $30.00 pay for 5 months, and reduction to pay
grade
E-1.

7.  On 5 October 1967, the applicant was convicted by a special court-
martial of being AWOL from 7 August 1967 to 30 August 1967.  He was
sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months, and forfeiture of half
of a month's pay for 6 months.

8.  On 22 September 1967, the applicant was informed by his commander that
he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness because of his being
unable to get along with others which creates disciplinary problems, and
his inability to adapt to military life.  He was informed of his rights and
waiver privileges.

9.  On 22 September 1967, the applicant acknowledged his commander's intent
to separate him for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-
212.  He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived
personal appearance before and board of officers, and elected not to submit
a statement in his own behalf.

10.  On 25 September 1967, the applicant’s unit commander recommended his
elimination under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.
His commander recommended his discharge because of his inability to adapt
to military life and his extensive AWOL time.

11.  On 7 November 1967, the applicant's battalion commander recommended
approval of his discharge.

12.  On 8 November 1967, the applicant's brigade commander recommended
approval of his discharge

13.  On 16 November 1967, the appropriate separation authority approved the
applicant's discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge
Certificate.

14.  On 22 November 1967, the applicant was discharged under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness with an undesirable discharge.
His DD Form 214 shows he had 1 year, 10 months, and 22 days of creditable
service, and 145 days of lost time.
15.  There are no medical records in the applicant's available records.
However, the recommendation for separation submitted by the applicant's
commander states that a medical examination was included with his
separation packet.

16.  The applicant provides the results of a 22 March 2005 hearing
evaluation which diagnosed the applicant with a moderately severe high
frequency hearing loss for the right ear, and a moderate, high frequency
hearing loss with bilateral tinnitus.

17.  The applicant also provides the results of a 22 June 2005 medical
examination completed as the result of his participation in the VA Agent
Orange Registry.  The examination found that that the applicant suffered
from chronic back pain, hypertension, peptic ulcer disease, decreased
hearing, chronic bronchitis, low back pain, and symptoms of PTSD (post-
traumatic stress disorder).  The applicant was told that his medical
conditions may not be related to Agent Orange exposure, and that the
examination did not automatically initiate a claim for VA benefits.

18.  There were three letters of support submitted with the applicant's
application which attested to his excellent work habits, his difficulty
with his war experience, and the hostile environment he returned home to.
The stress of the war and his wife leaving him is what caused his mental
breakdown and was responsible for his going AWOL.

19.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6a(1) of the
regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent
incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were
subject to separation for unfitness.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and
regulations applicable at the time.  The applicant was informed of his
rights, his waiver privileges, and the consequences associated with his
discharge.

2.  There is no evidence in the available records, nor did the applicant
provide documentation to substantiate his claim that he had a medical
condition sufficient to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.



3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy that requirement

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 22 November 1967; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on
21 November 1970.  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

__KW ___  ___LD __  ___EF___  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.




                                  ______________________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060010188                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070410                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | 20060003329

    Original file (20060003329.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 26 April 1968, the separation authority approved the separation action on the applicant and directed that he receive an UD. The applicant's contention that his overall record of service, and post service good conduct support an upgrade of his discharge, and the supporting documents he submitted were carefully considered. The evidence confirms the applicant had an extensive disciplinary history throughout the time he served, which included the time he served in the RVN.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053518C070420

    Original file (2001053518C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082971C070215

    Original file (2002082971C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Counsel also states that the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000386C070206

    Original file (20050000386C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requested consideration by a board of officers and to personally appear before that board. The board recommended the applicant be discharged from the service due to unfitness with issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000371

    Original file (20090000371.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 18 October 1967, the convening authority suspended the unexecuted portion of the FSM’s sentence pertaining to confinement at hard labor for 123 days, unless sooner vacated. There is no evidence in the available record to show the FSM ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076102C070215

    Original file (2002076102C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He had completed 2 years, 9 months and 9 days of creditable service and had 428 days lost time due to being AWOL or in confinement. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. There is no available evidence of record and the applicant provides none to show that he had any medical condition which indicates he was unfit for separation.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608775C070209

    Original file (9608775C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was in confinement from 7 August 1968 until 2 January 1969. On 16 September 1969 the applicant’s commanding officer recommended that the applicant be discharged for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the undesirable discharge that he might receive.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069983C070402

    Original file (2002069983C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered the following evidence: He believes that his PTSD symptoms are related to the rape incident in Vietnam. He had completed 11 months and 18 days of active military service.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027886

    Original file (20100027886.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his record to show he received a general discharge (GD) in lieu of the undesirable discharge he was issued. The evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for correction of his record to show he received a GD. _______ _ _X______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008837

    Original file (20130008837.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant states the FSM's discharge should be upgraded based on Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations Discharge Unfitness and Unsuitability). The applicant provides: * DD Form 214 * Birth certificate * Identification card * Certificate of Death * 3 letters, dated 3 September 2011, 22 March 2013, and 27 April 2013 * Special Orders (SO) Number 224, dated 24 September 1964 * SO Number 122, dated 21 May 1965 * SO Number 151, dated 24 June 1965 * SO Number 86, dated 10 May 1966 *...