RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 8 March 2007
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060012717
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.
x
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, in effect, that Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of his 27 April 1987 Separation Document (DD Form 214) be changed to reflect a more favorable discharge.
2. The applicant states, in effect, that his first sergeant (1SG) was not a moral man. He states that his 1SG promised him that if he reenlisted he would receive an overseas assignment to Germany. However, after he reenlisted, he never received this assignment. He claims that he became discouraged and disgusted by his 1SG's empty promises of an overseas assignment and as a result, he requested to be discharged.
3. The applicant provides the following documents in support of his application: DD Form 214; Veterans Administration Letter, dated 31 August 1984; and Report of Confidential Social Security Benefit Information.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice that occurred on 27 April 1982. The application submitted in this case is dated
21 August 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 applicants failure to timely file.
3. The applicants Military Personnel Record Jacket (MPRJ) is void of a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his separation processing. The record does contain a DD Form 214 that shows on 18 October 1977, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 13-4c (2), Army Regulation 625-200, by reason of Unsuitability (apathy, defective attitude or inability to expend effort constructively). It also confirms he received a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).
4. The applicant's DD Form 214 also shows that he earned the Army Service Ribbon, Army Good Conduct Medal, and Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle and Hand Grenade Bars during his active duty tenure. It further shows he completed a total of 4 years, 1 month, and 25 days of creditable active military service and that he accrued 4 months and 15 days of time lost.
5. There is no indication in the record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
6. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13, in effect at the time, provided the authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unsuitability based on inaptitude, personality disorder, apathy, or homosexual tendencies. Members separated under these provisions could receive either an HD or GD.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicants request for a change to the Narrative Reason shown in
Item 28 of his DD Form 214 was carefully considered. However, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the requested relief.
2. The applicants record is void of a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge processing. However, it does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 that identifies the reason and characterization of his discharge. Therefore, Government regularity in the discharge process is presumed. Absent information and evidence to the contrary, it is concluded that all requirements of law and regulation were met, and that 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 27 April 1987, the date of his discharge. Therefore, the time for him to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 26 April 1990. 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
___x_ _x _ _x__ 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.
___x____
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
CASE ID
AR20060012717
SUFFIX
RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
2007/03/08
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
GD
DATE OF DISCHARGE
1977/10/18
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR635-200 . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
Mr. Swartz
ISSUES 1.
110
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014306
x The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The separation document (DD Form 214) he was issued at the time shows he completed a total of 2 years, 9 months, and 2 days of active military service and that he had accrued 29 days of time lost due to AWOL. The applicant's claim that his command had informed him that separation from the military for personality disorder warranted an HD and that he would be discharged with an HD was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007358
The ADRB case report also confirms that on 3 August 1964, the unit commander initiated action to discharge the applicant from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 (Personnel Separations - Discharge -Unsuitability), by reason of unsuitability (apathy, defective attitude, and inability to expend effort constructively). However, the Brotzman Memorandum requires that the revised provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 be applied retroactively when reviewing applications for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004797C070205
The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 2 August 1977, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant be furnished a general discharge. Therefore, there is insufficient basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070000126C071029
On 21 June 1982, the applicant was discharged accordingly. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. The evidence of record provides no documentary evidence that indicates the applicant was ever denied the opportunity to apply for a hardship discharge or that he ever suffered from or was treated for a disabling medical condition that would have supported his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006590
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant states, in effect, that at the time of his discharge, his first sergeant (1SG) informed him that it was not right for him to receive a GD given he almost completed his full term of service. He further indicated that he had been in the military for 2 years and 8 months, and that based on his length of service, he believed he should be allowed to finish his term of service and not be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070006416C071029
The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) or honorable discharge (HD). The evidence of record confirms the separation authority directed the applicant receive a GD and the DD Form 214 shows he was appropriately issued a GD Certificate. The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004049C070206
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). However, under current regulations, members separated by reason of personality disorder (character and behavior disorder) must be issued an HD except in cases where there are "clear and demonstrable reasons" why a fully honorable discharge should not be given. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000552
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. The available evidence supports his request for an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. In view of the change, the general discharge issued to the applicant at the time of separation is inconsistent with the standards for discharge for unsuitability, character and behavior disorder (now...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009929
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). There is no indication that the applicant ever petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15 year statute of limitations. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unsuitability (character and behavior disorder), as...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020233
The applicant's unit commander notified him of pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for unsuitability - apathy, defective attitudes, or inability to expend efforts constructively. There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable...