Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012386
Original file (20100012386.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    12 October 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100012386 


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 that his general discharge be upgraded to fully honorable.

2.  The applicant states he served honorably in a Top Secret unit in Cold War Berlin Brigade and the unit's mission was extremely stressful and dangerous given the political and cultural anti-war and anti-American atmosphere of the 1960's in West Berlin and the Soviet bloc's lethal tactics against U.S. Armed Forces personnel.  He goes on to state that his records are missing an Army psychological evaluation done prior to his separation that documented his pre-existing depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in his childhood history and, therefore, constituted a pre-existing disability that was exacerbated by the trauma of his service in Berlin.  He further states that the punitive role of this type of evaluation should be considered as well as his being encouraged to accept a general discharge so as not to burden the Army with rehabilitation and a service-connected disability at a later date.

3.  The applicant provides copies of:

* his passport
* his registration certificate as a licensed clinical social worker
* his Master of Social Work diploma and transcript
* his annual membership card for the National Association of Social Workers (NASW)
* a certificate of training from the NASW
* a certificate of appreciation from The American Legion
* his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge)
* incomplete facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge
* documents relating to disciplinary action being taken against him
* his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record)
* his entrance medical examination

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 6 December 1947 and he enlisted in Brooklyn, New York, on 7 February 1966 for a period of 3 years and training in the medical care career management field.  He was transferred to Fort Dix, New Jersey, to undergo basic training.  On 31 March 1966, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer.

3.  He completed basic training and was transferred to Fort Sam Houston, Texas, to undergo advanced individual training (AIT) as a pharmacy specialist.  On 9 June 1966, NJP was imposed against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 26 to 29 May 1966.

4.  On 14 June 1966, he was transferred to Fort Knox, Kentucky, to undergo AIT as a radio operator.  He completed this training and received orders assigning him to Germany with a report date to Fort Dix on 7 September 1966.  He did not report as ordered and was reported as AWOL on 7 September 1966.

5.  He remained absent until he was returned to military control at Fort Dix on 20 October 1966 and NJP was imposed against him for the AWOL offense.

6.  He was transferred to Germany on 21 October 1966 and was initially assigned to Detachment A, U.S. Army Berlin Brigade, for duty as a radio operator.

7.  On 26 October 1967, NJP was imposed against him for being AWOL from 21 to 24 October 1967.  His Top Secret security clearance was revoked and he was assigned temporary duties in Frankfurt, West Germany.

8.  On 27 October 1967, he underwent a psychiatric evaluation and was diagnosed as having a personality pattern disturbance with use of a hallucinogenic drug (3207).  The examining psychiatrist noted that the applicant admitted to using the hallucinogenic drug lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) with full knowledge of his rights under Article 31, Uniform Code of Military Justice.  He further stated the applicant was preoccupied with thoughts about girls, but he is frequently depressed because of his inability to get very far with most of them.  Uppermost in his mind was his difficulty in establishing what he considers satisfactory relationships with women.  The examining psychiatrist opined that the applicant's admitted use of drugs and his lack of particular remorse about being AWOL did not point to significant rehabilitative potential.  He recommended administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unfitness and Unsuitability) due to his personality disorder and use of illegal drugs.

9.  On 1 November 1967, the applicant's commander initiated action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability.  The commander indicated that although the applicant openly admitted to having used LSD, there was insufficient evidence to base a recommendation for unfitness.  Therefore, separation for unsuitability was recommended based on his character and behavior disorder.

10.  On 2 November 1967 after consulting with counsel, the applicant waived all of his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

11.  On 6 November 1967, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

12.  Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 14 November 1967 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.  He served 1 year, 7 months, and 20 days of total active service with 49 days of lost time.

13.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unsuitability or unfitness.  It provided that members having undesirable habits or traits of character were subject to separation for unsuitability based on inaptitude, a diagnosed character and behavior disorder, apathy, alcoholism, and enuresis.  Although a general discharge was authorized, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) governs the policies and procedures for the separation of enlisted personnel.  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.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier's separation specifically allows such characterization.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with regulations in effect at the time.

2.  The applicant's contention that his service with the Berlin Brigade exacerbated his PTSD has been noted and appears to lack merit.  The majority of the applicant's misconduct occurred prior to his assignment in Berlin and there is no evidence to show otherwise.

3.  It is further noted that the psychiatric evaluation conducted at the time specified that the applicant's personality pattern disturbance was associated with the use of hallucinogenic drugs which the applicant openly admitted to using.

4.  Therefore, given the applicant's admitted use of illegal drugs at the time, it appears the commander considered his circumstances when he gave the applicant a general discharge instead of an undesirable discharge.  Accordingly, there appears to be clear and demonstrable reasons for not upgrading his discharge to a fully honorable discharge.

5.  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.

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)                                         AR20100012386



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100012386



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025240

    Original file (20100025240.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no evidence in the available records to show he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Paragraph 3-7b states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059110C070421

    Original file (2001059110C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. It required retroactive application of revised policies, attitudes and changes in reviewing applications for upgrades of discharges based on personality disorders. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015548

    Original file (20060015548.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 4 January 1968, a LOD investigator was appointed to report the facts and make findings as to the LOD in the case of the applicant. The applicant was discharged on 31 January 1968. The applicant has provided no evidence, and there is none to show that he was exonerated for his AWOL time, or to show that his AWOL time, of 263 days, should be excused or removed and counted as active duty time in item 12c, of his DD Form 214.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021730

    Original file (20090021730.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The psychiatrist recommended the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability. Given the circumstances in this case, the applicant's discharge was inequitable for the following reasons: * he served 4 years, 1 month, and 4 days of creditable service * he served in Vietnam for 1 year, 8 months, and 27 days * he was twice wounded and twice cited for meritorious service * he was promoted to SSG/E-6 in three short years * from 30 November 1966 to 7 May...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027620

    Original file (20100027620.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant departed Vietnam in July 1967 for assignment to Fort Dix. On 18 February 1977, the ADRB determined that while the applicant was properly discharged his discharge was inequitable under the circumstances and voted to upgrade his discharge to a general under honorable conditions based on his diagnosed personality disorder. Paragraph 3-7a of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel) provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070599C070402

    Original file (2002070599C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Medical records on 3, 4, 6, and 7 October 1966 show that he continued to complain of back pain, and that he received physical therapy for his back. The applicant on that same date stated that he had been informed of the approved findings and recommendations of the board. There is no evidence, nor has the applicant provided any, to indicate that his discharge because of a physical disability that existed prior to his entry on active duty was in error or unjust, and as such, there is no...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060046C070421

    Original file (2001060046C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 28 December 1967, the applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110006409

    Original file (20110006409.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027644

    Original file (20100027644.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, he now believes he should have been granted a medical discharge in 1971 and the administrative action taken by his unit commanders under Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unfitness and Unsuitability) for unfitness/unsuitability was based on incomplete evidence. He also believes his case may fall under Civil Action Number 77-0904 of 27 November 1979 referenced in Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records), paragraph 4-1a, since...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006207

    Original file (20080006207.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The military psychiatrists further stated that the applicant’s character was consistent with his life history and behavior. With respect to the applicant’s medical discharge, there is no evidence in the available records and the applicant did not submit any substantiating evidence that shows he was issued a permanent medical profile or that he underwent a medical evaluation board (MEB) or a physical evaluation board (PEB). The Army must find that a Soldier is physically unfit to reasonably...