IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 29 January 2015
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140010353
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 that his general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.
2. The applicant states he applied for home owners and automobile insurance and was told he was ineligible because he needed to have an honorable characterization of service. He believes his discharge should be upgraded so he can get this insurance.
3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) ending on 16 October 1970.
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. On 11 July 1962, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States. He was honorably discharged on 13 September 1962 for the purpose of immediately enlisting in the Regular Army. He completed his initial training and was awarded primary military occupational specialty (PMOS) 632.20 (Track Mechanic). In November 1962, he was award a secondary MOS 11E (Armor Crewman).
3. Records show the applicant served a 13-month tour of duty in the Republic of Korea, a 12-month tour of duty in the Republic of Vietnam, and then went to Alaska for his third tour of duty.
4. On 13 August 1970, the applicant's commander notified him that he had initiated elimination proceedings against him for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations-Discharge-Unfitness or Unsuitability) due to displaying a total disregard for his financial obligations. He had established a pattern of dishonorable failure to pay just debts. The company commander recommended that he be eliminated from the service for unfitness and be furnished a DD Form 257A (General Discharge Certificate).
5. On 5 October 1970, the appropriate separation authority approved the elimination request and directed that the applicant be discharged under the regulatory provisions cited above with a general under honorable conditions characterization and a separation program number (SPN) 28F (Unfitness - established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts).
6. On 16 October 1970, the applicant was discharged accordingly. He had completed 5 years, 4 months, and 7 days of creditable active duty service and had attained the rank of specialist five, pay grade E-5.
7. On 19 August 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board determined his discharge was proper and equitable and denied his request for an upgrade.
8. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness. The regulation provided that members were subject to separation for unfitness because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. When separation for unfitness was warranted, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.
9. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Personnel) states in paragraph 3-7a 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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicants administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
3. The applicant's desire to obtain insurance does not justify upgrading his discharge.
4. In view of the above, the applicants request should be denied.
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) AR20140010353
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140010353
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020436
His military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army in the rank/grade of private (PV1)/E-1 on 5 April 1968, for 3 years. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), then in effect, provided that an honorable discharge was a separation with honor. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provided that a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010183
BOARD DATE: 4 January 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120010183 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic policy for the separation of enlisted personnel. The applicant was not diagnosed with PTSD during his military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000408
The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. However, he would not have met the eligibility criteria to his undesirable discharge upgraded to a general discharge under the SDRP, and his record of service does not warrant upgrading his discharge now.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018305
There is no evidence that indicates he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge. b. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. Although his record only shows he committed acts of misconduct that could be considered minor in nature, without his complete separation packet, and absent evidence showing error or injustice in his separation processing, administrative regularity must be presumed in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017276
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD). Paragraph 3-7b of the same regulation provides that a GD is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001414
On 24 June 1970, his acting commander informed him of the initiation of proceedings to discharge him under the provisions Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities. On 6 July 1970, the applicant received a letter of reprimand from his company commander for being in a physical condition such that he could not perform his normal duties. On 14 July 1970, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge for...
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 | 20110008461
On 3 April 1971, the applicant's unit commander notified him that action was being initiated to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Army Regulation 635-200, 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016778
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. There is no evidence and he has not provided any to show that one or more of these conditions existed. Additionally, as stated in Army Regulation 635-212, when separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004592
On 7 October 1970, the applicant's unit commander recommended that he be required to appear before a board of officers to consider his separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. There were no medical records available to the Board and the applicant provided no medical records. Additionally, as stated in Army Regulation 635-212, when separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.