BOARD DATE: 1 November 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120007777
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 earlier petition to the Board requesting an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to a general discharge.
2. The applicant states, in effect, all of the information related to his service was not included in the original application.
3. The applicant provides a VA Form 9 (Appeal to Board of Veterans Appeals) and a disability evaluation examination in support of his request.
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 AR20100022809, on 3 March 2011.
2. During the original review of the case, the Board determined the applicants separation action was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation with no indication of procedural error which would have jeopardized his rights.
3. The applicant provides a disability examination completed on 7 February 2002 which indicated he suffers from polyarthralgia with no definite classification except some signs of degenerative osteoarthritis. It also indicated he suffered some memory loss and has a personality disorder because his social contacts are minimal.
4. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army 13 January 1976, and he was advanced to private first class/E-3 on 25 August 1977; this is the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty. He was reduced to private/E-2 and private/E-1 for cause on 8 February 1978 and 16 March 1979, respectively.
5. The applicants record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement. His disciplinary history includes acceptance of nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice on five separate occasions between 17 February 1978 and 26 March 1979; a special court-martial conviction on 13 June 1977; and a general court-martial conviction on 5 June 1978.
6. The applicants record is void of any medical treatment records indicating he suffered from any disabling mental or physical condition that would have supported separation processing through medical channels. A DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 31 May 1979, shows the examiner found the applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, and he was able to adhere to the right. He also had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceeding and he met medical retention standards. The examiner further indicated the applicant suffered from no significant psychiatric disease that would have supported separation processing through medical channels.
7. On 23 July 1979, the unit commander notified the applicant action was being initiated to separate him under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), by reason of a pattern of misconduct. On
3 August 1979, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, its effects, the rights available to him, and the effect of a waiver of those rights.
8. On 9 August 1979, the separation authority approved the applicants separation action under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of misconduct, and directed the issuance of a UOTHC discharge. On 14 August 1979, the applicant was discharged accordingly.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicants reconsideration request and the new evidence submitted has been carefully considered. However, there remains insufficient evidence to support this claim.
2. The evidence of record shows the applicants separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.
3. The evidence the applicant submitted shows the medical conditions he suffered from as of that date in 2005; it provides no evidence related to the applicants medical fitness for duty at the time of his discharge. The medical evidence of record confirms the applicant was suffering from no disabling medical or mental conditions that would have supported separation processing through medical channels at the time of his discharge.
4. Absent any evidence of record or independent evidence submitted by the applicant showing any error or injustice in his discharge processing, there remains an insufficient evidentiary basis to amend the original decision in this case, and/or to grant 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20100022809, dated 3 March 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) AR20120007777
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120007777
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021892
The applicant's DD Form 214 shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service with an under other than honorable discharge on 11 May 1978. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The DD Form 3822-R confirms the applicant was suffering from no disabling mental condition that warranted his separation processing through medical channels.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130005816
The applicant provides: * four self-authored letters * partial service medical records * extensive post-service medical records * Board of Veterans' Appeals Decision Letter, dated 24 May 2002 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army PDES and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016660
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his records to show he was discharged by reason of physical disability. She states: * Honorably discharging her husband instead of medically discharging him has caused him, her, and their family great anguish * They have been fighting against a system that does not care about right or wrong * She believes the Army is disregarding the fact that her husband was disabled when he was on active duty * When he was no longer able to function...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016441
On 4 April 1978, the applicants company commander recommended the applicant be discharged because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Separation), paragraph 14-33b(1). On 22 May 1978, the applicant's company commander stated that applicant had elected to have his case heard before a board of officers and requested personal appearance before that board. The separation authority approved the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071310C070402
On 20 August 1979, the U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency in Washington, D.C., reviewed the decision of the informal PEB and found the applicant was unfit by reason of residuals of injury (traumatic brain syndrome) "determined not to be in the line of duty due to own misconduct." The Board also noted the applicant's service personnel and medical records do not contain any evidence of behavioral or medical conditions prior to 13 November 1978 which resulted in a diagnosis of psychiatric...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004916
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 September 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110004916 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant's record contains a Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination) completed on 14 August 1978.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009178
The applicant requests that he be issued a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period he was in Korea from 19 April 1977 through 3 July 1979 to show he was medically discharged. The evidence of record shows the applicant was hospitalized at Fort Gordon, for a period of 60 days from 6 January 1978 to 23 March 1978. Chapter 7 (Physical Profiling) of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) provides that the basic purpose of the physical...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003658C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 19 December 1978, his unit commander notified the applicant that separation action was being initiated on him under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, based on his frequent violations of the UCMJ in a ten-month period. On 30 January 1979, the separation authority directed the applicant be discharged under the provisions of paragraph 14-33b, Army Regulation 635- 200, by reason of misconduct (frequent incidents of a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019134
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 June 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130019134 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Chapter 13 of this regulation, as in effect at the time, provided for separation due to inaptitude and apathy. Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation was characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001055248C070420
The VA’s 12 January 1994 decision to grant service connection for schizophrenia was available for this Board’s original consideration of the case. The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence had been submitted. The applicant has submitted no evidence to show that he was manifesting symptoms of, had a diagnosis of, or was treated for any physical, mental or psychological condition that would have warranted referral for a medical evaluation.