IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 11 October 2011
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110005491
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 reconsideration of his previously denied request that his general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable.
2. The applicant states his military records which show he was in a major motorcycle accident that has left him disabled for the rest of his life were not taken into account.
3. The applicant provides a self-authored statement, previous Board decision, and extracts of his military medical records.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20100018957, on 16 February 2011.
2. The applicant provides a self-authored statement and medical record extracts which show the treatment he received after his motorcycle accident. These records were not previously reviewed by the ABCMR. Therefore, they are considered new evidence and as such warrant reconsideration by the Board.
3. Records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 April 1979 and upon completion of training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 15E (Pershing Missile Crewman).
4. He received nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for the following offenses:
* failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed on 17Â August 1983
* absent without leave (AWOL) on three separate occasions, during the period 7 October to 7 November 1983, 9 November to 14 November 1983, and 18 November to 29 November 1983
5. Records show that, on 17 June 1983, the applicant was involved in a motorcycle accident in which he suffered no head injury or loss of consciousness. His injuries were a torn left anterior cruciate and medial collateral ligaments, multiple contusions, abrasions, and right renal contusion.
6. There is no evidence in the available records which show that the applicant's indiscipline was incurred as a result of his accident.
7. On 29 November 1983, the applicant was notified of the initiation of separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, paragraph 14-12, for repeated AWOLs and a demonstrated lack of self-discipline. The applicant was also advised of his rights.
8. On 29 November 1983 and after consulting counsel, the applicant provided statements acknowledging his misconduct and requested that he be given a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.
9. On 12 December 1983, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12, based on a pattern of misconduct. The separation authority directed the issuance of a general (under honorable conditions) discharge and that he not be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve of the U.S. Army Reserve.
10. On 16 December 1983, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) confirms he was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He completed 4 years, 7 months, and 25 days of active service with 17 days of lost time.
11. There is no evidence that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.
12. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories included minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.
13. Army Regulation 635-200, 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's request for an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge was carefully considered and determined to lack merit.
2. Although the applicant provided medical treatment records showing he was involved in a motorcycle accident, these records do not show he suffered a head injury or loss of consciousness. His injury and treatment do not show a direct causal affect to his indiscipline. Further, at the time of his separation, he provided a statement requesting a general (under honorable conditions) discharge and did not indicate his motorcycle accident or injuries sustained were a mitigating factor for his indiscipline.
3. The evidence shows he was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time. There is no evidence of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process, Further, his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.
4. Based on his record of indiscipline, he is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge.
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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20100018957, dated 16 February 2011.
_______ _ 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) AR20110005491
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110005491
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003135
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 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. After review of the evidence of this case, it is determined that the applicant has not presented sufficient evidence which warrants upgrading his UOTHC discharge to a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018957
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). There is no evidence nor did he submit any evidence that supports his claim of being in a motorcycle accident during his active duty service. The evidence of record shows he had three Article 15's and was separated with a general under honorable conditions discharge for a pattern of misconduct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017325
A review of the FSM's available military service records failed to show any evidence that he was found to have any unfitting medical condition(s). There is no evidence of record that shows the FSM was diagnosed with any unfitting medical condition(s) during the period of service under review. The evidence of record shows that less than 6 months after he enlisted in the Army the FSM committed offenses for which he was convicted by a general court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011774
The cause of the accident had not been determined and substantial evidence did not exist to demonstrate that either intentional misconduct or willful negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. On 17 April 1985, he appealed the determination and entered the following arguments: * He was traveling between 25-30 miles per hour because he knew there was a stop sign ahead * He swerved to the right to avoid hitting a deer * There was no evidence in the police report of excessive speed,...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2012-083
PSC noted that the records show that the applicant repeatedly admitted that he had incurred his learning disability, which was what caused him to be unfit for duty, in a motorcycle accident in 1975; that the applicant stated in his rebuttal to the medical board report that his condition had improved while on active duty; and that the FPEB found, based on ample evidence, that there had been no increase in or aggravation of the applicant’s learning disability since his enlistment. He asked...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003054
Included in the medical records are three DA Forms 1051 (Report of Injury) that show: a. he was hospitalized from 29 February to 3 March 1979 for injuries to his face and a mild concussion following an altercation in a civilian bar; b. on 16 July 1980, he received a head injury. The separation authority approved the separation action and directed that the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and issued a UOTHC discharge. The applicant was discharged on 15 August 1981 under the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020995
A drill instructor stepped on his leg to flatten it and the applicant told him the leg was injured and hurt. e. While in AIT, he had another leg injury when a tire fell on his leg. The evidence of record confirms that on 16 December 1982 an EPSBD found the applicant's condition of left thigh pain existed prior to his entry into military service and recommended he be discharged for failing to meet medical procurement standards.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021404
On 3 November 1978, he was seen regarding pain to his left shoulder and left leg resulting from the accident the day prior. The evidence shows the applicant voluntarily requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant's record is void of any evidence and he did not provide any evidence showing the injuries he sustained in the bus accident contributed to his misconduct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020559
The applicant states: * the investigating officer (IO) did not conduct a thorough investigation into the FSM's death * it appears the IO made his decision based on hearsay information told to the police officer at the scene of the accident * the IO stated in his findings that there was no toxicology examination and that is incorrect; additionally, the IO stated he did not interview any witnesses * the police report did not say alcohol was a factor in the accident's cause 3. In this...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009636
The actual helmet was severely damaged and the chin strap was torn; c. she was told by hospital personnel that the FSM would not have survived the accident if he had not been wearing a helmet; d. the toxicology report finding differs from the reported blood alcohol content (BAC) level on the LOD and the method of determining the alcohol level did not meet the Texas legal standards for a finding of DWI; e. a formal LOD was not required and she did not receive a copy of the LOD until over a...