RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 30 October 2007
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070010181
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.
| |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano | |Director |
| |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos | |Analyst |
The following members, a quorum, were present:
| |Ms. Carmen Duncan | |Chairperson |
| |Mr. Chester A. Damian | |Member |
| |Mr. Ronald D. Gant | |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, in effect, that his DD Form 214 (Certificate of
Release or Discharge) for the period ending 26 July 1982 be corrected to
show his date of birth as 27 January 1949; to show he was medically retired
with a disability rating of 100 percent; and to add unspecified awards and
military education courses.
2. The applicant states that his DD Form 214 for the period ending 26 July
1982 was signed in ink and carbon, but “they” inked in items 23 through 29
after item 30 was signed.
3. The applicant provides two copies of his DD Form 214 for the period
ending 26 July 1982 – one is copy number 4 and the other appears to be copy
number 2; a letter, dated 11 June 2007, from the National Personnel Records
Center; and a Narrative Summary, dated 20 August 1981.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. 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 also allows the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an
applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations
if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.
While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided
in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a
substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is
granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the
applicant’s failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are
insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.
2. The applicant was born on 27 January 1949. After having had prior
service in the U. S. Marine Corps, during which time he served in Vietnam,
the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 June 1976. There is no
evidence to show a medical waiver was needed for his enlistment. He
completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS)
31M (Multichannel Communications Equipment Operator).
3. The applicant was honorably discharged on 24 March 1980 and immediately
reenlisted on 25 March 1980.
4. On 10 December 1980, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment
(NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failing
to go to his appointed place of duty (the motor park).
5. On 11 May 1981, the applicant was trained in and reclassified into MOS
64C (Motor Transport Operator) at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, after which he was
assigned to Fort Hood, TX.
6. The applicant provided a Narrative Summary that showed he underwent an
excision of an exostosis (a benign bony growth projecting outward from the
surface of a bone) in his right tibia on 21 August 1981. On this document,
the applicant underlined the entries, “Previous operation on the right
hand. Past injuries reveal fragment wounds to the right thigh and chronic
low back pain” and indicated he received those injuries while in the U. S.
Marine Corps in Vietnam. The document indicated the applicant tolerated
the procedure well, was ambulating on the ward with crutches with full
weight bearing, and he was ready for discharge. He was discharged with no
medications, diet as tolerated, ambulation with assistance of crutches, and
3 weeks convalescent leave.
7. On 1 October 1981, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ
for failing to go to his appointed place of duty (physical training
formation) and for disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer
(to attend remedial physical training).
8. On 6 October 1981, the applicant requested reclassification because the
physical limitations he had due to an operation on his right knee rendered
him unable to drive a vehicle safely.
9. On 9 November 1981, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ
for disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer (to get three
trucks ready for dispatch) and for three specifications of failing to go to
his appointed place of duty (headcount at the dining facility, company
charge of quarters, and physical training formation).
10. On 17 November 1981, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation.
The Chief, Psychology Service noted the applicant was experiencing
significant impairment in emotional and occupational functioning due to
adjustment difficulties in his current unit which were complicated by his
leg surgery and by a delayed post-traumatic stress disorder secondary to
Vietnam combat experiences. He was psychiatrically cleared for a chapter
13 discharge with follow-up by the Veterans Administration (VA). A follow-
up was also recommended on a report by the applicant that he was granted
disability payments by the VA for a mental disorder.
11. On 16 June 1982, the applicant’s company commander initiated
separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, due to
unsuitability as evidenced by apathy and defective attitude. The commander
cited the applicant’s inability to expend his efforts constructively, his
inability to assume financial responsibilities, and his substandard
personal habits. He was advised by counsel of the basis for the
contemplated separation action. He waived consideration of his case by a
board of officers; waived personal appearance before a board of officers;
and waived representation by counsel. He indicated that a statement was
submitted; however, no statement is available.
12. On 16 July 1982, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation
and directed issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.
13. On 26 July 1982, the applicant was discharged with a discharge under
honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
paragraph 13-4C, for unsuitability – apathy, defective attitude, or
inability to expend effort constructively.
14. Item 5 (Date of Birth) of the applicant’s DD Form 214 for the period
ending 26 July 1982 shows his date of birth as “490127” (i.e., 27 January
1949).
15. Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons
Awarded or Authorized) of the applicant’s DD Form 214 for the period ending
26 July 1982 shows the Army Service Ribbon, the National Defense Service
Medal, the Overseas Service Ribbon, the (Army) Good Conduct Medal, the U.
S. Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal;
the Vietnam Service Medal with one bronze service star, and the Republic of
Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with Palm Unit Citation.
16. Item 14 (Military Education) of the applicant’s DD Form 214 for the
period ending 26 July 1982 shows the Multichannel Communication Equipment
Operator Course (1976), the Italian Conversation Course (1977), the Motor
Transport Operator Course (1981), and the Military Airlift Command Airlift
Planners Course (1980).
17. The applicant’s DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows he
was awarded the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle
Bar and the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar.
18. The applicant’s DA Form 2-1 shows he completed the Multichannel
Communication Equipment Operator Course and the Italian Conversation
Course. It also shows he completed three additional courses while he was
in the U. S. Marine Corps.
19. The applicant provided two copies of his DD Form 214 for the period
ending 26 July 1982. One is copy number 4 and the other appears to be copy
number 2. Item 23 (Type of Separation), item 24 (Character of Service),
item 25 (Separation Authority), item 26 (Separation Code), item 27
(Reenlistment Code), item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation), and item 29
(Dates of Time Lost During this Period) on both of these DD Forms 214
contain the same entries:
Item 23 – “Discharge”
Item 24 – “Under Honorable Conditions”
Item 25 – “Para 13-4C AR 635-200
Item 26 – “JMJ”
Item 27 – RE-3, 3C”
Item 28 – “Unsuitability-apathy, defective attitude or inability to
expend effort constructively” and
Item 29 – contains the entry “None” on the copy that appears to be
copy number 2; however, the entry in this item on copy number 4 is
obliterated.
20. Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 of the version in effect at the
time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted
personnel for unsuitability. It provided that members were subject to
separation for unsuitability for inaptitude, personality disorder, and
apathy (lack of appropriate interest, defective attitudes, and inability to
expend effort constructively). A general under honorable conditions
characterization of service was normally appropriate.
21. Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of
Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of
physical disability. The unfitness is of such a degree that a Soldier is
unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating in such a
way as to reasonably fulfill the purposes of his employment on active duty.
In pertinent part, it states that the mere presence of an impairment does
not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical
disability. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree
of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the
Soldier reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office,
grade, rank, or rating.
22. Army Regulation 635-5 prescribes the separation documents prepared for
Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military
service or control of the Army. It establishes standardized policy for the
preparation of the DD Form 214. The instructions for completing item 14
are to list in-service training courses successfully completed during the
period covered by the DD Form 214.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant’s DD Form 214 for the period ending 26 July 1982 already
shows his date of birth as 27 January 1949.
2. The applicant requested that his records be corrected to show he was
medically retired with a disability rating of 100 percent.
3. It is acknowledged that in October 1981 the applicant requested
reclassification because the physical limitations he had due to an
operation on his right knee rendered him unable to drive a vehicle safely.
The operation, in August 1981, was undertaken to excise an exostosis in his
right tibia. However, the Narrative Summary he provided indicated he
tolerated the procedure well, was ambulating on the ward with crutches with
full weight bearing, and he was discharged with no medications, diet as
tolerated, ambulation with assistance of crutches, and 3 weeks convalescent
leave. There is no evidence to show he required any further treatment for
his leg or that he could not fully perform his duties. Further, the
applicant did not indicate on the request for reclassification that any
mental condition prevented him from performing his duties as a 64C.
Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to show he required physical
disability processing or that he should have been medically retired.
4. The applicant requested that unspecified awards be added to his DD Form
214 for the period ending 26 July 1982. His DA Form 2-1 shows he was
awarded the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar
and the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar and
these awards should be added. There is no evidence of record to show that
he was eligible for any other awards. If the applicant believes he is
eligible for any awards from his service with the U. S. Marine Corps, he
must apply to the Board for Correction of Naval Records.
5. The applicant requested that unspecified military education courses be
added to his DD Form 214 for the period ending 26 July 1982. His DA Form 2-
1 does not show that he completed any courses while in the Army other than
the ones already listed on his DD Form 214. If the applicant is referring
to the courses he completed while in the U. S. Marine Corps, the guidance
for completing the DD Form 214 was to list only those in-service courses
completed during the period covered by the DD Form 214. Therefore, there
is insufficient evidence to warrant adding any additional military
education courses to his DD Form 214 for the period ending 26 July 1982.
6. The applicant contended that his DD Form 214 for the period ending 26
July 1982 was signed in ink and carbon, but “they” inked in items 23
through 29 after item 30 was signed. The entries on both of the copies of
the DD Form 214 that he provided contain the same entries, and they both
appear to have been typed in carbon. The entries on copy number 4 appear
to be slightly blurrier; however, that would be a normal occurrence since
the typewriter keys were hitting copy number 4 after passing through three
sheets of originals with carbon paper in between. There is insufficient
evidence to show that there were any irregularities in completing this DD
Form 214.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
__cd___ __cad___ __rdg___ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
1. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board
recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual
concerned be corrected by adding the Sharpshooter Marksmanship
Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar and the Sharpshooter Marksmanship
Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar to his DD Form 214 for the period
ending 26 July 1982.
2. The Board further determined that the evidence presented is
insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result,
the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to
changing his separation to a medical retirement or adding additional
military education courses to his DD Form 214 for the period ending 26 July
1982.
__Carmen Duncan_______
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
|CASE ID |AR20070010181 |
|SUFFIX | |
|RECON | |
|DATE BOARDED |20071030 |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
|DISCHARGE REASON | |
|BOARD DECISION |GRANT |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY |Ms. Mitrano |
|ISSUES 1. |108.00 |
|2. |110.04 |
|3. |100.00 |
|4. | |
|5. | |
|6. | |
-----------------------
[pic]
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010181
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant provided two copies of his DD Form 214 for the period ending 26 July 1982. __x_____ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20070010181 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20071030 TYPE OF DISCHARGE DATE OF DISCHARGE DISCHARGE AUTHORITY DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION GRANT REVIEW AUTHORITY Ms. Mitrano ISSUES 1.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010181C080213
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant provided two copies of his DD Form 214 for the period ending 26 July 1982. Army Regulation 635-5 prescribes the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012256
On 26 August 1981, the applicants immediate commander initiated a Bar to Enlistment/Reenlistment Certificate against the applicant citing his three instances of nonjudicial punishment and extensive history of counseling. This form further shows he completed 4 years and 9 months of creditable active military service. XXX _________________________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019567
His discharge was improper and/or inequitable and his commander initiated the administrative separation erroneously and/or willfully neglected to follow the requirements of Army Regulation 635-200 (guidelines on separations, counseling and rehabilitation requirement, instruction in benefits of an honorable discharge, action by unit commander when Soldier is under military control, separation and medical examinations, and types of administrative discharges). On 23 April 1982, the separation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016558
The applicant requests the narrative reason for separation be removed from his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). The regulation states the reason for discharge based on separation code "JMJ" is "unsuitability apathy, defective attitude or inability to expend effort constructively" and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-4c. The applicant's narrative reason for separation was administratively correct and in conformance with...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019698
Those members who do not meet medical retention standards will be referred to a physical evaluation board (PEB) for a determination of whether they are able to perform the duties of their grade and military specialty with the medically disqualifying condition. The applicant's service record shows a history of acceptance of NJP and an 8-day period of AWOL with no record of disciplinary action taken by his chain of command. The available evidence is also insufficient to change his narrative...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011228
On 22 February 1980, an official of the 573rd Personnel Service Company, Fort Bragg, NC, initiated a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) adjusting her enlistment grade from E-1 to E-3 effective 5 February 1979 (date of enlistment) in accordance with Army Regulation 601-280 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program). She was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action for unsuitability, the type of discharge she could receive and its effect on further enlistment or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120000035
There is no evidence of record and he did not provide any evidence that shows he was re-promoted to SGT/E-5 after his reduction on 23 August 1982. There is no evidence of record that shows he was again promoted to SGT/E-5 after 23 August 1982 or prior to his discharge on 20 September 1982. ____________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 | 20130006882
Consistent with the chain of command's recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of unsuitability and directed issuance of a general discharge under honorable conditions. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 29 July 1982. His general discharge is commensurate with his overall record of military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002997
The applicant requests his general, under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 13 July 1982, 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 indicates the actions taken in this case were in...