2. The applicant requests that his social security number (SSN) on his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) be corrected from ……… to ………. He also requests, in effect, that his other than honorable discharge be upgraded to honorable. He states that his discharge was unjust, that the Army did not help him with his substance abuse problems, and therefore his behavior was out of control. He finally received the help he needed at a VA hospital and has been sober for over six years. He is now a productive citizen and a licensed substance abuse counselor. If the Army had helped him, he would have been a good soldier. 3. The applicant entered active duty on 12 October 1966. The copy of his social security card, which he submitted with his application, his Enlisted Qualification Record, as well as various documents in his official military personnel file show the last digit of his SSN as …. 4. The applicant completed basic training and was assigned to Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana for advanced training. On 23 February 1967 he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for AWOL. On 19 May 1967 he received nonjudicial punishment for AWOL from 29 April to 18 May 1967. In August 1967 he was assigned to Hawaii. On 14 November 1967 he received nonjudicial punishment for failure to go to his place of duty. 5. In January 1968 the applicant was assigned to Vietnam. A 20 May 1968 report of psychiatric evaluation indicates that the applicant had no evidence of drugs or alcohol; there was no evidence of psychosis or neurosis. The applicant had a passive aggressive personality, manifested by anger and impulsive acting out behavior, with a history of impulsive action. The examining psychiatrist opined that the applicant had potential for rehabilitation. The applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings. The applicant met the medical standards for retention in the Army and was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate. 6. On 30 May 1968 he was arraigned, tried, and found guilty by a special court-martial for leaving his place of duty and for drunk and disorderly. On 26 August 1968 he was arraigned, tried, and found guilty by a special court-martial for disobedience of a lawful order, and possession of marijuana. 7. On 5 September 1968 the applicant’s commanding officer initiated action to separate the applicant for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. The applicant consulted with counsel, stated that he had been advised of the basis for the contemplated action, and that he understood the nature and consequences of the under other than honorable conditions discharge that he might receive. He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf. 8. A 6 September 1968 report of medical examination indicates that the applicant was medically qualified for separation with a physical profile of 1 1 1 1 2 1. In the report of medical history the applicant furnished for the examination he stated that he was: “In good physical condition.” 9. The applicant’s commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be eliminated for unfitness and that he receive an undesirable discharge certificate. On 24 September 1968 the separation authority approved that recommendation. The applicant was discharged at Oakland, California on 26 September 1968. He had 1 year, 10 months, and 25 days of service, and 20 days of lost time. 10. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 6 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that an individual was subject to separation for unfitness because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities; drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit-forming drugs or marijuana; and an established pattern of shirking. When separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Apparently through administrative error, the applicant’s DD Form 214 shows the last digit of his SSN as . vice .. His DD Form 214 should reflect a SSN of ……... 2. 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. 3. The characterization of his discharge is commensurate with his overall record. The Board notes the applicant’s contentions of his good post service conduct but this is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the relief requested. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request to upgrade his discharge. He has failed to submit evidence that his undesirable discharge was unjust, unfair, or in error. 4. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the applicant’s social security number is …….. 2. That so much of the application as in excess of the foregoing be denied. BOARD VOTE: GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION GRANT FORMAL HEARING DENY APPLICATION CHAIRPERSON