IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 8 November 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120008806
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 undesirable discharge (UD) be upgrade to a general discharge (GD).
2. The applicant states he did not deserve the type of discharge he received. He requests an upgrade "Because of my health."
3. The applicant provides no supporting documentation.
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 applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 July 1971, completed training, and was awarded the military occupational specialty 11E (Armor Crewman). He was assigned duty in Germany.
3. The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP), on 22 February 1972, for absenting himself from his place of duty.
4. Except for a mental status examination, a physical examination, and statements from his chain of command, the record does not contain the discharge processing documentation.
5. Neither the mental health examination nor the physical examination found any abnormalities or defects.
6. His platoon leader submitted a statement stating the applicant had been assigned to the unit for one month. During that time, he was a habitual complainer, generally uncooperative, failed to meet personal appearance standards, and failed to keep his living area clean. On one occasion he was found to have been "so spaced out" as to be unable to function properly and was found to have prohibited drugs in his possession.
7. His company commander stated the applicant's performance of duty was poor and he required constant supervision. He had been counseled on several occasions about his duty performance, attitude, personal hygiene, and maintaining his living space. He had been picked-up by the military police for being in an unauthorized area during an exercise. He had been found to have been using illegal drugs, had caused an accident with the unauthorized use of a government vehicle, leaving the scene of an accident, and to have been carrying a concealed weapon. He received a transfer to a line unit only to refuse to work with his assigned platoon leader or follow the orders of his company commander.
8. On 8 August 1972, the applicant was discharged, with a UD, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 and given a Separation Program Number of 28B (unfitness, commission of frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civilian or military authorities). He had 1 year and 9 days of creditable service with no recorded lost time.
9. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statutory limit for review.
10. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 6 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of individuals determined to be unfit for further service by reason of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. Under this regulation and paragraph the appropriate authority could approve an honorable, a general discharge or a UD.
11. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
a. 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 members 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.
b. 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.
12. Army Regulation 15185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). Paragraph 2-9 states that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The regulation governing the Board's operation require that the discharge process must be presumed to have been in accordance with applicable law and regulation unless the applicant can provide evidence to overcome that presumption.
2. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The type and character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record.
3. Any health problems the applicant is currently suffering from have no bearing on the misconduct the resulted in his discharge 40 years ago.
4. The record does not contain and the applicant has failed to provide any evidence to support his contention that he did not deserve the type of discharge he received.
5. The mere passage of time is insufficient in and of itself to warrant a change of the applicant's discharge, especially in light of the fact that his military record is devoid of significant service.
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) AR20120008806
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120008806
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9509654C070209
On 21 May 1970, while serving in Vietnam, he reenlisted, in pay grade E-3, for 3 years. On 12 January 1971, the applicants commander submitted a request recommending that the applicant be required to appear before a board of officers convened under Army Regulation 635-212 for the purpose of determining whether he should be discharged before the expiration of his term of service. The applicants DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) indicates that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022609
He provided a DA Form 2823, dated 13 March 1970, which shows an investigator stated that on 11 March 1970 the applicant's father had been advised by the applicant that action had been initiated to discharge him from the Army because of his homosexual problems. 24 April 1970, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness and directed the issuance of a UD Certificate. As a result, the Board recommends...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110025134
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The separation authority could authorize a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge if warranted by the member's record of service. b. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012567
On 11 May 1960, having determined that the applicant was unsuitable for further military service, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 by reason of unsuitability and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate. The SPN of "264" was the correct code for Soldiers separating under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unsuitability-character and behavior disorder. As a result, the Board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110008128
He requested counsel and a hearing by a board of officers. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The applicant further contends that he was not given the opportunity of rehabilitation to another unit and that there are no documents in his military records that show 90 days were taken on his DD Form 214.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020121
There is no evidence that indicates he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The applicant's leadership indicated his attitude and job performance was very poor; he absented himself from the platoon without permission; he had to be constantly told to get a haircut, shave, or dress in a more military manner; he had continuously caused trouble since he joined the platoon; he refused to carry out orders; and he had admitted for no...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110005965
However, there is a DD Form 214 on file that shows the applicant received a UD on 18 March 1969. The separation authority could issue an honorable discharge (HD) or general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions if warranted by the member's overall record of service; however, a UD was normally considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions. There is no evidence on file and the applicant has failed to provide any evidence to support this claim.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070007112
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD), characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), be upgraded to a general discharge or honorable discharge. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. However, there is no evidence in the applicant's records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to show that he attempted to or applied...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072387C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 21 October 1971, the applicant’s commander notified him of recommended separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness. On 15 March 1972, the separation authority approved the board’s recommen-dation and directed that he be discharged with a UD, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007927
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 3-7b, provides that a GD is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The record further shows the applicant was counseled concerning his rights, and he voluntarily elected to waive his right to consideration of his case by a board of officers. It is also clear his record did not support the issuance of an HD or GD by the separation authority at the time of his discharge and does not support an upgrade of his discharge now.