BOARD DATE: 7 May 2015
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140016015
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 the reason and authority for his separation be changed to a more favorable reason that will qualify him for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits.
2. The applicant states, in effect, that he is being denied medical benefits from the VA because he received a Class III discharge that he never requested.
3. The applicant provides two letters explaining his application and copies of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States), discharge letter and dependency certificate.
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 applicants military records are not available for review. A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members' records at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973. It is believed the applicant's records were lost or destroyed in that fire. However, the documents provided by the applicant are sufficient to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case.
3. The applicant was inducted on 17 September 1952. He completed his training as a medical aidman and he was transferred to the 516th Medical Company in Germany.
4. The letter provided by the applicant explains that he received a 9-month deferment prior to his induction because he was self-employed and his parents depended on him. He goes on to state that while stationed in Germany his father passed away and he returned to the United States on leave and was told to report to the Pentagon where he was questioned about his dependency. He was subsequently advised that he was to be discharged; however, it was 9 years later that he received his discharge and when he sought medical help from the VA, he was informed that he was not eligible because he had received a Class III discharge.
5. On 24 July 1953, he was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-362, section III, due to hardship. He had served 10 months and 7 days of active service.
6. Army Regulation 615-362, in effect at the time, served as the authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for dependency or hardship. It provides, in pertinent part, that an individual may, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Army, be separated when, by reasons of death or disability of a member of his family occurring after enlistment or induction, members of the enlisted persons family become principally dependent upon him for care and support or if his separation from the service would materially affect the care and support of his family members by alleviating undue hardship.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicants discharge was conducted in accordance with the regulations then in effect, with no violations of any of the applicants rights.
2. While it is indeed unfortunate that he may not qualify for VA benefits, the Board does not have jurisdiction over the VA as they operate under their own set of laws and regulations. Additionally, the Board does not change a properly issued discharge simply to qualify individuals for benefits.
3. Therefore, given the available evidence, there appears to be no error or injustice to correct in his case.
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) AR20140016015
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140016015
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003042
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). While the applicant's military records are not available for review, the applicant has not provided any evidence which would show that he served on active duty longer than what is reflected on his DD Form 214. _________XXX_____________ 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 | CY2013 | 20130002302
The applicant's military records are not available for review. There is no evidence available to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations. _______ _ 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 | CY2013 | 20130016525
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 June 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130016525 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states he is asking for reconsideration based on his service in Korea as a paratrooper and his receiving a Purple Heart on 5 October 1953 for wounds received in combat in Korea while serving with the 187th Regimental Combat Team (RCT) at Pork Chop Hill. The facsimile of a Purple Heart Certificate provided by the applicant is new evidence, which requires that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027232
The applicant requests that his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States) be corrected to show his service is characterized as honorable. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)) provides that the Board begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has not provided any documentation or convincing argument supporting his contention that he should have been...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006701
The applicant's service personnel records contain a DA Form 137 (Installation Clearance Record), dated 23 September 1969, which shows his commanding officer did not recommend him for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal. He listed twelve contentions regarding his request for an upgrade from general to honorable to include the following: (1) did not commit a crime; (2) did not participate in any crime; (3) was not a willing participant in any offense (4) was not afforded the opportunity to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080003314
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge be changed to a medical discharge. On 6 December 1960, he was transported to the military hospital at Sheppard AFB, Texas, where he remained until 9 January 1961. The applicant has provided insufficient evidence to show that his discharge was unjust and that he should have been medically discharged.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8404174
He applied for a hardship discharge due to his father’s illness and because he did not list his father as a dependent he was discharged for fraudulent enlistment and issued an undesirable discharge certificate. Counsel for the applicant contends that a fraudulent enlistment under the provisions (UP) of AR 615-366 in 1949 was recommended by commanders for any of seven disqualifying reasons, none of which pertain to the applicant. Because his records were apparently lost or destroyed in the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000530
On 24 April 1975, approximately a year after his discharge, he applied for a waiver to again enlist in the RA and the EEA denied his request contending that he had two disqualifications, one being a medical defect and the other that he had been discharged for hardship/dependency. His medical records for this enlistment are not available for review with this case. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to show he was unfit for separation or that he could not perform the duties of his rank...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050005717C070206
The applicant requests, in effect, that the records of his deceased father, a former service member (FSM), be corrected by awarding the FSM all overseas awards and decorations; by amending the race entry pertaining to the FSM in Special Orders, dated 15 January 1953; by recognizing the pain and suffering of the FSM based on injuries and treatment for Tuberculosis he received while on active duty; by amending the FSM’s separation document (DD Form 214) to remove the 33 days of time lost...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072845C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted. There is nothing in the available records to support the applicant’s contention that he was eligible for a hardship discharge and was not provided assistance.