IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  4 October 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120006453 


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 unsuitability discharge be changed to a hardship or a medical discharge and his reentry eligibility (RE) code 3 be changed.

2.  The applicant states:

   a.  In effect, he should have been discharged for injuries received on 8 March 1965 and not for being overweight.  Section 10 (Remarks) of his DA Form 24 (Service Record) contains the entry, “Not Eligible for Reenlistment (RE-3).”

   b.  He believes his separation was based on the health condition of his father and was possibly a hardship issue or hardship medical issue from injuries he suffered in March 1965.  He wants his discharge changed to clarify the separation reasoning as a matter of justice and fairness to better document his true injury.

   c.  He had a conversation with his chain of command about his father’s health issue with bursitis.  His father’s health greatly improved after treatment and therapy.  He feels betrayed by the military for the simple generalized type of handling of his separation.  Many taxpayer dollars were spent to train him and the taxpayers got shortchanged.  He wants a better interpretation of his release from military service.



3.  The applicant provides:

* DA Form 24, section 10
* Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination)
* DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge)

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 record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-1, on 25 July 1963, for 3 years.  He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 112.07 (Heavy Weapons Infantryman).  He was advanced to pay grade E-3 on 30 March 1964.

3.  In March 1965, the applicant’s company commander requested the applicant undergo physical and psychiatric evaluations in accordance with Army Regulation 635-209 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Inaptitude or Unsuitability), paragraph 7, due to the applicant’s inability to withstand the pressures of military life.

4.  A Mental Hygiene Consultation Service memorandum, dated 5 March 1965, shows he underwent a mental status evaluation and was diagnosed with a passive-dependent personality, chronic, severe, manifested by poorly controlled, pleasure-oriented, impulsive behavior and excessive tendency to cling to others and rely on them for guidance.  He was found to have interpersonal relationships fraught with difficulty due to poorly-controlled feelings of guilt, hostility and anxiety, immature judgment, and impaired insight.  Line of duty:  No, existed prior to service (EPTS).  The examining physician, a psychiatrist, found the applicant had no disqualifying mental defect sufficient to warrant disposition

through medical channels.  The applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, and able to adhere to the rights.  It was determined the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.  Administrative separation was recommended.

5.  In March 1965, the applicant’s company commander initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209. 

6.  On 12 March 1965, after consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged the proposed action to separate him for unsuitability under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209.  He also acknowledged he could be issued an undesirable discharge and as a result deprived of any or all rights as a veteran under both Federal and state laws.  He waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

7.  A Standard Form 88, dated 15 March 1965, shows he was found qualified for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209.

8.  On 21 March 1965, the applicant’s company commander recommended the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, for Unsuitability.  In a memorandum, dated 23 March 1965, the applicant’s company commander stated:

   a.  The applicant had been under his command since 26 August 1964.  The applicant had on numerous occasions showed signs of emotional imbalance, often to the point of making him unfit for normal military duties.  On at least one occasion he became hysterical and had a near nervous breakdown when he had to perform kitchen police on a field exercise.  The applicant had a tendency towards daydreaming and acute depressions.

	b.  The applicant was given the sole task of day room orderly.  He had performed that job in an acceptable manner, but whenever he was required to perform normal military duties he would fail.  The first sergeant, chaplain, and he had counseled the applicant on numerous occasions.  He felt that all available efforts had been exhausted in attempting to rehabilitate the applicant.

9.  On 31 March 1965, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant discharge and directed the issuance of an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

10.  Section 10 of his DA Form 24 shows he was assigned RE-3.

11.  He was honorably discharged in pay grade E-3 on 8 April 1965, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209.  He was credited with completing 1 year, 8 months, and 14 days of net active service and no time lost.  He was assigned a separation program number (SPN) of 260 (unsuitability, ineptitude).  

12.  There is no evidence he sustained an injury or medical condition that would have made him eligible for a medical discharge.  Also, there is no evidence he requested and/or was denied a hardship discharge.

13.  There is no evidence he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board requesting a change to the reason and authority of his discharge within its 
15-year statute of limitations.

14.  Army Regulation 635-209, in effect at the time, established the policy and provided procedures and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unsuitable for further military service due to inaptitude, character and behavior disorders, apathy, enuresis, alcoholism, and homosexuality.  An individual would normally be issued an honorable or a general discharge, as warranted by the individual's military record.

15.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) at the time stated SPN code 260 was the code to be used for separation for Unsuitability, ineptitude.

16.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program), in effect at the time, provided that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals would be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  Chapter 3 of the regulation included a list of Armed Forces reentry codes, including Regular Army RE codes.  RE-3 applied to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification was waivable.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 July 1963 for 3 years.  It appears he served without incident until August 1964 when his company commander at the time noticed the applicant displayed signs of emotional imbalance, often to the point of making him unfit for normal military duties.  The applicant’s company commander states whenever he was required to perform normal military duties the applicant would fail.  He felt that all available efforts had been exhausted in attempting to rehabilitate the applicant.

2.  The applicant’s company commander requested the applicant undergo a psychiatric evaluation.  He was found to have a passive-dependent personality, chronic, severe, manifested by poorly controlled, pleasure-oriented, impulsive behavior and excessive tendency to cling to others and relay on them for guidance.  No significant mental defect to warrant disposition through medical channels.  He was found to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, and able to adhere to the rights.  Administrative separation was recommended.

3.  On 12 March 1965, he acknowledged that he understood the reason for his separation, waived his rights, and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  His discharge was approved and he was honorably discharged on 8 April 1965, assigned an SPN of 260 for unsuitability, because of ineptitude, and assigned RE-3.

4.  There is no evidence to support his contentions for entitlement to a hardship or medical discharge.  There is no evidence he was found to be unfit by reason of physical disability during his period of active duty.  He acknowledged the reason for his separation.  He did not mention any medical conditions he was experiencing and he was medically cleared for separation.  

5.  He has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument to show he had any medical conditions that would have amounted to a disability separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40.  Therefore, he is not entitled to a medical discharge.

6.  He has also failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that the separation authority, RE code, and the reason for his separation are incorrect.

7.  His 1965 discharge was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  The type of discharge directed and reason for the separation were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

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)                                         AR20120006453





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120006453



6


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1