2. The applicant requests, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 3. The applicant's military records show he was born on 8 March 1943. He completed 11 years of formal education. On 30 January 1961, he enlisted into the Regular Army for 3 years. His Armed Forces Qualification Test score was 65 (Category II). He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 746.10 (Quarter Master Supply Specialist). On 8 May 1963, the applicant was honorably discharged after serving 2 years, 3 months and 9 days of active creditable service. On 9 May 1963, the applicant reenlisted for 6 years. The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-5. 4. Between 27 November 1963 and 28 January 1967, the applicant accepted four nonjudicial punishments under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for two occasions of failure to repair, for leaving his appointed place of duty without proper authority, for the wrongful impersonation of a staff sergeant, for dereliction in the performance of his duties and for disorderly conduct. His punishments included forfeitures, restrictions, extra duties and a reduction to pay grade E-3. 5. Between 3 June 1967 and 9 February 1968, the applicant was convicted by two special courts-martial for two specifications of failure to repair and for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 26 April to 24 May 1967. His sentences included forfeitures, confinement and a reduction to pay grade E-1. 6. On 12 February 1968, the applicant was arraigned and tried by a general court-martial for two specifications of being AWOL from 16 July to 13 October 1967 and from 16 to 26 October 1967, for escaping from military confinement and for breaking restriction. The case was dismissed on motion by the defense counsel for lack of a speedy trial. 7. On 12 February 1968, the applicant was notified that his commander was recommending a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness. The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him. 8. On 17 February 1968, the applicant was evaluated by a psychiatrist. There was no evidence of psychosis or neurosis or other disorders qualifying him for disposition through medical channels. He was considered mentally competent to participate in board proceedings. 9. On 27 February 1968, the applicant was directed to appear before a board of officers for the purpose of determining whether he should be discharged before the expiration of his term of service. 10. On 4 March 1968, the board convened. The board of officers found the applicant to be undesirable for further retention because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities and recommended that the applicant be discharged because of unfitness with a discharge UOTHC. 11. On 29 March 1968, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC. On 9 April 1968, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness with a discharge UOTHC. He had completed 4 years, 2 months and 16 days of creditable active service during this enlistment and 260 days of lost time. He was awarded the Purple Heart, the Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal and the Vietnam Campaign Medal. 12. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 6a(1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate. 13. On 26 March 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. 14. The VA, in determining qualifications for benefits administered by that agency, generally holds that an individuals who accepts a discharge prior to completion of his complete term of obligated service may not be eligible for benefits unless or until the VA determines that the early discharge amounted to a complete and unconditional separation from the service. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. 2. The overall quality of the applicant’s last period of service does not warrant an upgrade of his discharge, but in view of the honorable character of his prior term of service, his honorable discharge on 8 May 1963 should be considered a complete and unconditional separation. 4. The circumstances of the applicant’s honorable discharge on 8 May 1963 have worked an injustice upon him by depriving him of consideration for certain VA benefits for the preceding periods of service. 5. In consideration of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and in recognition of his more than 2 years, of good service, it would be unjust to consider his honorable discharge of 8 May 1963, as other than a complete and unconditional separation from the military service. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was eligible for a complete and unconditional separation from the military service at the time of his honorable discharge on 8 May 1963. 2. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied. BOARD VOTE: GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION GRANT FORMAL HEARING DENY APPLICATION CHAIRPERSON