IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 11 August 2015
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150000874
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 an upgrade of his general discharge to honorable.
2. The applicant states he served his country with honor and deserves an honorable discharge.
3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) and a third-party letter of support.
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 14 June 1966 for a period of 3 years and assignment to Europe. He was assigned to Fort Bliss, Texas, to undergo his basic training.
3. The applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) on 24 June and remained absent until he was returned to military control on 17 July 1966. He again began a series of being AWOL on four occasions. On 27 October 1966, he was convicted pursuant to his pleas by a special court-martial at Fort Ord, California, of being AWOL from 24 June to 18 July, 30 July to 10 August, 14 August to
25 August, 12 September to 15 September, and 7 October to 12 October 1966. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor and forfeiture of pay for
3 months. However, on 1 November 1966, the convening authority suspended that portion of his sentence pertaining to confinement at hard labor for a period of 3 months unless sooner vacated.
4. The applicant remained at Fort Ord to undergo his basic training and on 27 January 1967 he was convicted pursuant to his plea by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 28 November to 30 December 1966. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 5 months.
5. The applicant served his confinement, completed his basic training, and performed on-the-job training as a supply clerk at Fort Ord until he was transferred to Germany on 24 August 1967.
6. On 10 January 1968, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer.
7. On 1 March 1968, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of disobeying a lawful order. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 15 days, reduction to pay grade E-1, and forfeiture of pay.
8. On 13 March 1968, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation and he was diagnosed as having an immature personality with aggressiveness. The examining psychiatrist indicated the applicant was oriented, rational, and coherent and gave no indication of abnormal thinking or behavior suggesting psychosis. He also indicated the applicant stated his desire to get out of the Army and gave no indication of any desire to adjust to military life.
9. On 26 March 1968, the applicants commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations Discharge Unfitness and Unsuitability) for unsuitability due to a personality disorder.
10. The applicant waived his rights, declined the opportunity to submit a statement in his own behalf, and declined the opportunity to consult with counsel.
11. The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 27 March 1968 and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.
12. On 25 April 1968, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, paragraph 6(b), for unsuitability due to a character and behavior disorder with a general discharge. He completed 1 year, 3 months, and 10 days of total active service with 214 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
13. There is no evidence in the available records to show he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards
15-year statute of limitations.
14. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unsuitability or unfitness. It provided that members having undesirable habits or traits of character were subject to separation for unsuitability based on a diagnosed character and behavior disorder.
15. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Separations) was revised on 1 December 1976 following settlement of a civil suit. Thereafter,
the type of discharge and the character of service were to be determined solely by the individual's military record during the current enlistment. Further, any separation for unsuitability based on a personality disorder must include a diagnosis of a personality disorder made by a physician trained in psychiatry. In connection with these changes, a Department of the Army memorandum, dated 14 January 1977, better known as the "Brotzman Memorandum," was promulgated. It required retroactive application of revised policies, attitudes, and changes in reviewing applications for upgrades of discharges based on personality disorders. A second memorandum, dated 8 February 1978, better known as the "Nelson Memorandum," expanded the review policy and specified that the presence of a personality diagnosis would justify upgrade of a discharge to fully honorable except in cases where there are "clear and demonstrable reasons" why a fully honorable discharge should not be given. Convictions by general court-martial or by more than one special court-martial were determined to be "clear and demonstrable reasons" which would justify a less than fully honorable discharge.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would jeopardize his rights.
2. Accordingly, the characterization and the narrative reason for separation were appropriate for the circumstances of his case.
3. The applicant was convicted by two special court-martials and one summary court-martial and he had 214 days of lost time during his relatively short period of service. Consequently, it appears the above-mentioned memoranda should not be applied to this case and his discharge should not be upgraded to honorable.
4. The applicant's contentions have been noted; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating when compared to the repeated nature of his offenses during a short period of service and his otherwise undistinguished record of service. Additionally, the Board does not upgrade discharges solely for the purpose of qualifying individuals for benefits.
5. Accordingly, the applicant's overall service simply did not rise to the level of a fully honorable discharge.
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 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) AR20150000874
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150000874
5
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070004066
The evaluation shows that the applicant was referred for evaluation prior to elimination under Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations) for unsuitability. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. _____Linda D. Simmons___ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20070004066 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED TYPE OF DISCHARGE DATE OF DISCHARGE DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR 635-212 DISCHARGE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018643
On 5 August 1968, the company commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action to effect his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability), paragraph 6a, for unfitness. The applicant's military personnel records contain his DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, Separation Program Number (SPN) 386 with service characterized as under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003491
The applicant requests that his general discharge of 12 February 1968 be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions on 12 February 1968, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unsuitability due to a character and behavior disorder. There is no evidence to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000246
On 7 February 1967, the convening authority approved only so much of the sentence as provided for hard labor without confinement for 2 months and forfeiture of $40.00 per month for 4 months. On 2 October 1973, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for a general discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011425C070208
On 24 May 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded the applicant's undesirable discharge to a general under honorable conditions discharge under the Special Discharge Review Program. This group could apply to a Presidential Clemency Board which was made up of individuals appointed by the President (members were civilians, retired military and members of the Reserve Components) who would establish a period of alternate service of not more than 24 months that the individuals...
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 | CY2008 | 20080012275
The applicant states that he served 6 months in Vietnam and after 40 years and the amnesty granted by the President, he should also receive an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant was convicted by a special court-martial on 24 August 1967 of being AWOL from Fort Riley from 23 September 1966 to 19 June 1967. Accordingly, the applicant was transferred to Fort Lewis, Washington where he was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 22 June 1968, under the provisions of Army Regulation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070475C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. There is no evidence of record nor has the applicant submitted any evidence that shows that the action taken by the Army in this case was incorrect and in view of his numerous acts...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070012191
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge (GD), upgraded by the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP), be changed to an honorable discharge. 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. This program, known as the DOD Discharge Review Program (Special) (SDRP) required, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, that a discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018701
The applicant requests upgrade of his general under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 3 October 1967 with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability due to character and behavior disorder. Evidence of record shows the applicant's total service extended from 1 March 1966 to 3 October 1967 for a period of 1 year, 7 months, and 2 days.