IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 12 November 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140005639
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, an upgrade of his general under honorable conditions discharge to fully honorable.
2. He states he was discharged based on the reason listed on his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) which describes post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSS). He states he is service-connected and has been recommended for 100 percent disability rating by a government therapist.
3. He provides Discharge Upgrading and Discharge Review.
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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 September 1973.
3. On 8 May 1974, he was convicted by a summary court-martial, contrary to his pleas, of disobeying a lawful command from his superior commissioned officer and behaving himself with disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 20 days and a forfeiture of $150.00 pay for one month.
4. His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he was imprisoned from 12 April to 2 May 1974 (20 days).
5. His disciplinary history also includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on three occasions for the following offenses:
* failing to obey a lawful order
* failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 27 August 1974 (twice) and 13 September 1974
* failing to maintain his bunk and equipment in an acceptable manner
6. His unit commander notified him of pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for unsuitability - apathy, defective attitudes, or inability to expend efforts constructively. He was advised of his rights.
7. On 25 September 1974, he acknowledged receipt of the proposed discharge action. He consulted legal counsel, waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived personal appearance before a board of officers and submitted statements in his own behalf. He expressed that there was a lack of communication and that if they [chain of command] had come to a mutual understanding things would have turned out differently. He felt that things would have been different if at least one of his superiors had taken time to understand him and his position.
8. The unit commander recommended elimination action because of the applicant's apathy indicated by lack of motivation and sub-marginal performance of duty.
9. On 10 October 1974, the separation authority approved the separation action, waived rehabilitation requirements, and directed a general discharge.
10. He was discharged on 16 October 1974 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-5b(3) by reason of unsuitability apathy, defective attitude, or inability to expend effort constructively. He had completed 1 year and 7 days active military service with 20 days of lost time.
11. His service record is void of medical documentation which indicates he was diagnosed with any type of mental condition.
12. There is no evidence the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
13. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 of the regulation in effect at the time established policy and provided procedures and guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel found to be unfit or unsuitable for further military service. It provided for the separation of individuals for unsuitability whose record evidenced apathy (lack of appropriate interest), defective attitudes, and an inability to expend effort constructively. When separation for unsuitability was warranted, an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individuals entire record.
14. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 3-7a states 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.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant states that he was discharged based on the reason listed on his DD Form 214 which describes PTSS. However, his service record is void of evidence indicating he was diagnosed with this mental condition prior to his discharge or that he raised his mental condition as a possible defense at the time.
2. The applicant's administrative discharge proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at that time.
3. The applicant's service record shows he was convicted by a summary court-martial and received three Article 15s during his period of active duty.
4. It appears the chain of command determined that the applicant's overall military service did not meet the standards for an honorable discharge as defined in Army Regulation 635-200 and appropriately characterized his service as general under honorable conditions.
5. There is no evidence of record which indicates the actions taken in this case were in error or unjust. Therefore, there is no basis for granting the applicant's 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 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) AR20140005639
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140005639
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012256
On 26 August 1981, the applicants immediate commander initiated a Bar to Enlistment/Reenlistment Certificate against the applicant citing his three instances of nonjudicial punishment and extensive history of counseling. This form further shows he completed 4 years and 9 months of creditable active military service. XXX _________________________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002481C070206
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 September 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050002481 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The unit commander recommended that the applicant be required to appear before a board of officers to determine whether he should be discharged before his expiration of his term of service. He had completed 1 year,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010616
The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. _______ _ 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019698
Those members who do not meet medical retention standards will be referred to a physical evaluation board (PEB) for a determination of whether they are able to perform the duties of their grade and military specialty with the medically disqualifying condition. The applicant's service record shows a history of acceptance of NJP and an 8-day period of AWOL with no record of disciplinary action taken by his chain of command. The available evidence is also insufficient to change his narrative...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002083146C070215
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The current governing regulation states that an individual separated by reason of misconduct for commission of a serious offense (abuse of illegal drugs) would normally be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions. The Board reviewed the applicant's record of service which included three nonjudicial punishments...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014589
His service record does not indicate he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. When separation for unsuitability was warranted, an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record. The applicant's record is devoid of any evidence and he did not provide any evidence to show he was ever told he would be issued an honorable discharge 10 years after his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001256
The regulation stated when separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as appropriate by the member's military record. Although the applicant contends he was separated due to no disciplinary action, the available evidence shows he was counseled on three occasions for failure to be at his appointed place of duty and he received two NJPs. _______ _ __x_____ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014608
On 19 August 1971, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for absenting himself from his appointed place of duty on 15 August 1971. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The applicants record of service included three nonjudicial punishments.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110015359
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Five of those years, he has worked on a Federal contract; b. he also worked as a part-time Police Officer in Berwyn, IL; c. he left the Army because his mother was a victim of spousal abuse at the time, not because of the negative characterization of service on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). His service record does not indicate he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) within its...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026349
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. 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. Based on his overall record, the applicant's service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct of duty for Army personnel.