IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 12 November 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140006188
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 item 11c (Reason and Authority) of his DD Form
214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) be amended by removing the reason of unsuitability for his honorable discharge.
2. The applicant, in effect, describes his unit's climate as one filled with prejudice and frequent fights. Because he got caught up in this atmosphere, he was discharged and inappropriately deemed unsuitable.
3. The applicant provides no additional evidence.
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 5 October 1971. His records show he completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 36C (Lineman). The highest rank/grade he attained while serving on active duty was private two/E-2.
3. Records show, on 31 March 1972, the applicant was in a casual status and
enroute to an assignment within the United States Army Pacific. He was to report to the overseas replacement station at Oakland, California not later than 22 April 1972.
4. On 12 June 1972, the applicant's commander at the Transient Company, United States Army Personnel Center, Fort Ord, California, initiated separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge Unfitness and Unsuitability), citing a Report of Psychiatric Evaluation which essentially stated the applicant exhibited a severe, longstanding characterological maladjustment and was not suitable for further military service. The referenced psychiatric report is not available in the record.
5. On 12 June 1972, the applicant consulted legal counsel and waived:
* consideration of his case by a board of officers
* personal appearance before a board of officers
* submission of statements in his own behalf
* representation by a military or civilian counsel
6. The applicant acknowledged he could face substantial prejudice in civilian life should he be given a general discharge under honorable conditions.
7. On 19 June 1972, the approving authority directed the applicant be issued an honorable discharge with a separation program number (SPN) 264 (Unsuitability, character and behavioral disorders). On 21 June 1972, the applicant was discharged accordingly.
8. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time of the applicant's discharge, provided guidance for separation for unsuitability. In paragraph 6b(2) (Character and behavior disorders), it states the disorders are as determined by medical authority.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's contention that his discharge should be upgraded was carefully considered; however, there was insufficient evidence to support his request.
2. The applicant provides no evidence of his contention of prejudice and malice on the part of other service members within his unit. He also provides no information regarding his conduct and behavior since his discharge. He provides no evidence contradicting the indications that he was determined to have a character and behavior disorder diagnosed by competent military medical authorities.
3. The evidence of record confirms the applicant's separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation. All requirements of law and regulation are presumed to have been met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.
4. Based upon the foregoing, there is no basis to grant the relief requested.
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) AR20140006188
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140006188
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000980C070206
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge be changed to a medical discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 24 October 1972 with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability due to character and behavior disorders. Since the governing regulation stated that character and behavior disorders were considered to render an individual administratively unfit rather than unfit because of physical disability, and there is no...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000980C070206
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge be changed to a medical discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 24 October 1972 with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability due to character and behavior disorders. Since the governing regulation stated that character and behavior disorders were considered to render an individual administratively unfit rather than unfit because of physical disability, and there is no...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004344
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. The evidence of record shows the applicants separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability was administratively correct, all requirements of law and regulations were met, the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process, and the applicant was properly...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007446
There is no evidence of record to show that the applicant made a request to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was separated under the unsuitability (character and behavior disorder) provisions of the regulation in effect at the time. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016778
The applicant requests on behalf of her deceased spouse, a former service member (FSM), that his under honorable conditions discharge be changed to a medical discharge. On 21 June 1972, the FSM's unit commander advised the applicant that he was recommending him for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 based on his unsuitability for Army duty. Since these new standards retroactively authorized an honorable discharge in cases where Soldiers diagnosed with a personality...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018933
On 22 June 1972, his immediate commander recommended the FSM's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability. However, based on changes to Army Regulation 635-212 that stated, in part, service members diagnosed with a personality disorder and separated for unsuitability may be granted an honorable discharge, the applicant was granted partial relief and the FSM's discharge was upgraded to an honorable discharge. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110007845
On 3 April 1972, he departed his training unit in an AWOL status. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unsuitability and issued a general discharge. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and the character of service is commensurate with his overall record of military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017817
On 18 July 1967, the unit commander initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability due to character and behavior disorders. The evidence of record does not support the applicants contention that he was mentally ill when he was discharged. Since the applicants record of service included one nonjudicial punishment, two special courts-martial convictions, and 76 days of lost time, his record of service did not meet the standards...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004158
The applicant requests that his general, under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. He was 19 years, 9 months, and 11 days old at the time of enlistment. The applicant's supervisor stated that the applicant has worked under his supervision for the past ten years.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019740
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 February 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100019740 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Paragraph 27 provided that the DD Form 214 would be coded "RE-3," for all individuals, except those with over 18 years of active service, discharged under this regulation, so as to preclude reentry into the Army, unless authorized by appropriate authority. Army Regulations, in effect at the time, dictated that reenlistment code "RE-3" be assigned to Soldiers discharged...