IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    10 June 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090021031 


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 an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states his discharge was in error due to medical conditions.  He further states he needs his records corrected for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits consideration.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the period ending
18 September 1966.

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’s military records are not available to the Board for review.  A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members’ records at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973.  It is believed his records were destroyed or lost in that fire.  However, there were sufficient documents remaining in a reconstructed record for the Board to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case.

3.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years on 21 December 1964.  This form also shows that at the time of his separation, he held military occupational specialty 76A (Supply Clerk) and he was assigned to the 57th Light Maintenance Company, Thailand.

4.  The specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not available for review with this case; however, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged from the Army on 18 September 1966 in the rank/grade of private (PV1)/E-2, with a date of rank as 1 August 1966, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability) by reason of unsuitability (character and behavior disorder) with a character of service of under honorable conditions.  He was issued a DD Form 257A (General Discharge Certificate).

5.  His DD Form 214 further shows he completed 1 year, 8 months, and 18 days of creditable active service during this period of which 1 year and 25 days was foreign service.  He also had 10 days of lost time (30 January 1965 to 31 January 1965 and 18 April 1965 to 25 April 1965).  However, it is unclear if this lost time resulted from absence without leave (AWOL) or confinement.

6.  Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability.  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.  Paragraph 6b provided that an individual was subject to separation for unsuitability when one or more of the following conditions existed:

* inaptitude
* character and behavior disorders
* apathy (lack of appropriate interest, defective attitudes, and inability to expend effort constructively)
* alcoholism
* enuresis
* homosexuality (Class III - evidenced homosexual tendencies, desires, or interest, but was without overt homosexual acts).

7.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Active duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits 
provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends his general discharge should be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances that led to his discharge.  However, his record contains a properly-constituted DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 18 September 1966 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unsuitability with a general discharge.

3.  Absent evidence to the contrary, it is presumed all requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were presumably fully protected throughout the separation process.  It is also presumed his discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.

4.  His contention that his discharge was in error due to medical conditions is noted.  However, he did not provide supporting medical documents that show the specific medical conditions during his military service or the disposition of such conditions.

5.  The ABCMR does not grant requests for upgrade of discharges solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible for veterans or medical benefits.  Every case is individually decided based upon its merits when an applicant requests a change in his or her discharge.  The granting of veteran's benefits is not within the purview of the ABCMR and any questions regarding eligibility for health care and other benefits should be addressed to the VA.

6.  In order to justify correction of a military record, he must show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  He did not submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to grant him the requested relief.

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)                                         AR20090021031



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090021031



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1