IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 29 October 2009
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090009937
THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:
1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).
2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) be corrected to show he entered active duty on 2 March 1966 and therefore has 90 days of active duty.
2. The applicant states, in effect, that he was told he needs five more days of active service to be eligible for disability benefits.
3. The applicant provides no additional documentary evidence in support of this application.
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 applicants 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 applicants failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.
2. The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 March 1966. He completed basic training only and he was not awarded a military occupational specialty. The highest rank that he attained was private/
E-1.
3. On 1 June 1966, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200, due to unsuitability, inability to adjust to military life. The applicants DD Form 214 shows he completed a total of 2 months and 25 days of active service characterized as under honorable conditions.
4. Army Regulation 635-209, in effect at the time, set forth the policy and prescribed procedures for eliminating enlisted personnel for unsuitability. Action would be taken to discharge an individual for unsuitability only when, in the commander's opinion, it was clearly established that: the individual was unlikely to develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier or the individual's psychiatric or physical condition was such that a discharge for disability was not warranted. Unsuitability included (a) inaptitude; (b) character and behavior disorders, disorders of intelligence and transient personality disorders due to acute or special stress; (c) apathy (lack of appropriate interest), defective attitudes, and inability to expend effort constructively; (d), enuresis, (e) chronic alcoholism; and (f) Class III homosexuality (evidenced homosexual tendencies, desires, or interest, but was without overt homosexual acts). Evaluation by a medical officer was required and, when psychiatric indications were involved, the medical officer must have been a psychiatrist, if one was available. A general or an honorable discharge was considered appropriate.
5. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) is a synopsis of the Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty service. It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant contends that his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show he entered active duty on 2 March 1966.
2. The available evidence indicates he entered active duty on 7 March 1966 and he served until he was separated on 1 June 1966 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 and issued a General Discharge Certificate. There is no evidence that he was improperly discharged on this date or that he completed any additional service prior to or after this date.
3. There are no provisions for changing a properly issued DD Form 214 solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for other programs or benefits.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
____x____ ____x____ ____x____ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
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.
_______ _ __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.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090009937
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090009937
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001247
His service record does not indicate he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The Brotzman Memorandum required that the revised provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 be applied retroactively when reviewing applications for upgrade of discharges based on personality disorders. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. issuing him an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003255
On 23 August 1966, the applicant's unit commander recommended he be required to appear before a board of officers to consider his separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability), unsuitability. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 23 September 1966 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 with a separation program number (SPN) of 264 and 40A and Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002991
On 3 February 1971, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intention to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations-Discharge-Unfitness and Unsuitability) for unfitness based on his AWOL record. 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. Therefore, it would be appropriate at this time to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025412
There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. The applicants overall service record and his diagnosed personality disorder warrant upgrading his discharge to fully honorable as directed by the above-referenced Army memoranda. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. showing the individual concerned was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019153
On 10 April 1965, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 by reason of unsuitability with issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. The applicants service record is void of evidence which supports his contention he was assaulted by a Motor Pool Sergeant while he was on active duty in 1965. The Nelson Memorandum specified that the presence of a personality disorder (character and behavior disorder at the time)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007470
On 7 February 1967, the applicant waived his right to a board of officers and his counsel requested that he be considered for separation for unsuitability as opposed to unfitness due to prior good service, physical medical conditions, and his alcohol problems. The discharge authority approved the separation and directed the applicant be discharged under Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability and issued a general discharge certificate. In the absence of evidence that the applicant was so...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009460
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) to an honorable discharge (HD). He further states that he received a GD due to his inability to complete his training because of medical conditions, which he still has.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000645
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge under honorable conditions to an honorable discharge. The Brotzman Memorandum required that the revised provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 be applied retroactively when reviewing applications for discharge upgrades based on personality disorders. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140000645 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140000645 2 ARMY BOARD...
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 | CY2012 | 20120007736
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 3 February 1966, he was discharged under honorable conditions (a general discharge) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability due to apathy, defective attitudes and inability to expend effort constructively. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.