IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 1 March 2011
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100020797
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 his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
2. The applicant states his commander denied his requests to see a doctor for pain in his bones and joints. The pain was in his foot, lower back and neck. When he was denied medical treatment, he self medicated with large amounts of alcohol and became depressed.
3. He continues that many of the charges against him are false. He was imprisoned in the stockade for an unknown offense and, when he was released, he was instructed to sign discharge papers in a certain manner.
4. The applicant believes that his commander was racist and says the commander was dishonorably discharged after the applicant's discharge.
5. The applicant doesn't provide any additional documents.
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 applicants military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 December 1985, was awarded the military occupational specialty of materiel storage and handling specialist, and was promoted to pay grade E-3.
3. Between 16 January 1986 and 20 February 1987, the applicant was formally counseled for being absent from physical training formation, missing formation and failure to repair, and failure to report to his designated place of duty.
4. He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), three times for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (ten instances); being absent without leave (AWOL); breaking restriction; and, with the intent to defraud, falsely make the signature of another individual as an endorsement to a check.
5. The applicant was given a separation physical examination. The applicant stated on the Standard Form (SF) 93 (Report of Medical History) that his present health was "Good." The physician conducting the examination did not note any significant medical defect.
6. On 30 March 1987, the applicant was notified by his commander of his commander's intent to recommend his discharge due to misconduct and of his rights in conjunction with that recommendation. The applicant waived a board of officers on the condition he be issued no less than a general discharge. He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.
7. The applicant's commander then submitted a recommendation to discharge the applicant due to misconduct, that recommendation was approved by the appropriate authority, and the applicant was given a general discharge on 9 April 1987.
8. Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 14-12c applies to the separation of individuals who committed a serious military or civil offense, if the specific circumstance of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge would be authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the manual for courts-martial. An absentee returned to military control from an AWOL or desertion status may be separated for commission of a serious offense.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant accepted NJP for 13 violations of the UCMJ. He never contested any of the allegations made against him either at the time he was offered NJP or when he was given the opportunity to make a statement in his own behalf when he was being processed for discharge. Therefore, it must be presumed that he committed the offenses for which he was punished and which subsequently resulted in his discharge.
2. While the applicant states he had several serious medical conditions which led to his elevated consumption of alcohol and depression, he stated he was in good health on his separation physical examination and the examining physician did not note any significant medical defect.
3. There is no creditable evidence to support the applicant's contention that any action was taken against him due to his race or color.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicants 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) AR20100020797
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100020797
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018364
In support of this statement, counsel provides chronologic extracts from the applicant's medical records from June 2008 through May 2010 which show he was diagnosed with and treated for numerous conditions to include TBI, PTSD, and sleep disorder. The same date, Dr. KG and Mr. B, in response to a request for a Behavioral Health Evaluation issued by the WTB because the applicant was being administratively discharged, found the applicant to be suffering from PTSD, major depression disorder of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003476
On 23 August 2011, he received his first mental status evaluation based on a proposed separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 14-12c (Misconduct- Commission of a serious offense). The separation authority directed the applicant be processed for administrative separation for misconduct and discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2) with a general discharge. b....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004257
The ABCMR shall address, among other issues; * Whether a medical evaluation board (MEB) should have been conducted before the applicant was discharged from the Army * The Armys compliance with Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 1-33 and AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), paragraph 4-9 * The implications and remedies of no MEB having been conducted * The basis for the referral of the applicant to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100028155
Army Regulation 635-200 further states that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-35, states when the examining medical officer decides that a member being considered for elimination for misconduct (chapter 14) does not meet the retention medical standards, he or she will refer that member to a medical board. The Army must find that a service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021878
On 10 February 1987, the applicant was notified of the proposed separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 14-12, for misconduct (commission of a serious offense) for larceny, utterance of numerous worthless checks, attempts to obtain services under false pretenses, and AWOL. On 3 March 1987, the applicant was separated with a UOTHC discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (commission of a serious...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011158
The record does include a separation document (DD Form 214) that shows on 30 October 1987, he was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of misconduct, and that he received an UOTHC discharge. On 29 November 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), after careful consideration of the applicant's military records and all other available evidence determined that he had been properly and equitably discharged, and it voted to deny his request for a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070016322
Counsel states that the applicant forwarded a request to the DVA to have his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) corrected based on service-connected disability for PTSD due to his service in the Republic of Vietnam. Counsel then examines the applicants military medical records and argues that the results of these examinations would require the applicant to be considered by a medical board which, counsel contends, would have led to the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130001938
The applicant requests correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show: * her date of birth (DOB) as 6 Jxxxxxx 1968 * that she was discharged due to a medical disability 2. On 18 November 1987, she was involuntarily released from active duty, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, by reason of unsatisfactory performance with an honorable discharge. Based on her request, and her...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020564
The 1SG then instructed the applicant several times to get to his quarters now. On 25 June 2009, the separation authority, approved the separation action and directed that the applicant be discharge with a general discharge. With respect to a medical discharge, there is no evidence in his records which shows he was physically or mentally unfit at the time of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010077
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 8 May 1990, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.